^ 







filass L GG % 



/ 

THE EQUAL RIGHTS OF ALL; 

The Great Giiaraatee and Present Necessity, 
^or the Sake of Security, mn\ to Maintain a Itepublican Governmeut 



SPEECH 



OF 



OF MASSACHUSETTS, 



IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, FEBRUARY 6 AND 7, 1866. 



Taxation without representation is Tyranny.— T/te Revolutionary Fathers. > 

" The laws, the rights, 

The generous plan of power delivered down 

From ago to age, by our renowned forefathers 

So dearly bought, the price of so much blood, 

Ohl let it never perish in our hands." — Addison's Cato, 

"But, if any among you think that Philip will maintain his power by having occupied forts and havens 
nd the like, this is a mistake. Inipo.ssiljle is it— impossible, Athenians— to acquire a solid power by injustice 
nd perjury and falsehood. Such tilings hist for once, or for a short period; may be, they blofsom fairly 
"Ith hope; but in time they are discovered and drop away. As a house, a ship, or the like, ought to have 
s lower part firmest, so in human conduct, I ween, the principle and foundation should be just and 
rue," — Demosthenes, 2d Olymthiac. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 

1866. 



ME(SHUI9t 









EQUAL RIGHTS TO ALL, 



K 



The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, pro- 
ceeded to consider the following joint resolution (H. 
R. No. 51) proposing to amend the Constitution of 
the United States: 

Resolved hy the Senate and House of Representatives 
«>/ the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
(two thirds of both Houses concurring:,) That the fol- 
lowing article be proposed to the Legislatures of the 
several States as an amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States; which, when ratified by three 
fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of 
V'aid Constitution, namely: 

Article—. Representatives shall be apportioned 
among the several States which may bo included 
within this Union according to their respective nuin- 
bers, counting the whole number of persons in each 
State, excluding Indians not taxed: Provided, That 
whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or 
abridged in any State on account of race or color, 
all persons therein of such race or color shall be 
excluded from the basis of representation. 

Mr. SUMNER said: 

Mr. President: I begiu by expressing my 
acknowledgments to the Senator from Maine, 
who yields the floor to me to-day, and also my 
sincere regret that anything should interfere 
with the opening of this debate by him. It is 
his right, and I enter upon it now only by his 
indulgence. 

I am not insensible to the responsibility 
which I assume in setting myself against a 
OToposition already adopted in the other House, 
i'<d having the recommendation of a commit- 
tee to which the country looks with such just 
expectation, and to which, let me say, I look 
with so much trust. But after careful reflec- 
tion, I do not feel that I can do otherwise. 
Knowing, as I do, the eminent character of 
the committee, its intelligence, its patriotism, 
and the moral instincts by which it is moved, I 
am at a loss to understand the origin of a prop- 
osition which seems to me nothing else than 
another Compromise of Human Rights^ as if the 
country had not already paid enough m costly 
treasure and more costly blood for such com- 
promises iu the past. I had hoped that the 



day of compromise with wrong had gone by for 
ever. Ample experience shows that it ia the 
least practical mode of settling questions in- 
volving moral principles. A moral principle 
cannot be compromised. 

Here are the words of the amendment: 

Provided, That whenever the elective franchise 
shall be denied or abridged on account of race oi 
color, all persons therein of such race or color shall 
be excluded from the basis of representation. 

I may be mistaken, sir, but I think it diffi- 
cult to read this proposition without being pain- 
fully impressed by the discord and defilement 
which it will introduce into the Constitution, 
having among its specific objects the guarantee 
of a republican form of government. The dis- 
cord is apparent on the face. The defilement 
IS none the less apparent. Go back, if you 
please, to the adoption of the Constitution, and 
you will gratefully acknowledge that the finest 
saying of the times was when Madison, evi- 
dently inspired by the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, and determined to keep the Constitution 
in harmony with it, insisted in well-known words, 
that "it was wrong to admit in the Constitu- 
tion the idea of property in man." Of all that 
has come to us from that historic Convention, 
where Washington sat as President, and Frank- 
lin and Hamilton sat as members, there is noth- 
ing having so much of imperishable charm. It 
was wrong to admit in the Constitution the 
idea that man could hold property in man. 
Accordingly, in this spirit the Constitution was 
framed. This ofl'ensive idea was not admitted. 
The text at least was kept blameless. And now, 
after generations have passed, surrounded by 
the light of Christian truth and in the very blaze 
of Human Freedom, it is proposed to admit in 
the Constitution the twin idea of Inequality in 
Rights, and thus openly set at naught tiie first 
principles of the Declaration of Independence 
and the guarantee of a republican government 
itself, while you blot out a whole race politi- 



cally. For some time we have been carefully 
expunging from the statute-book the word 
"white. '■''and now it is proposed to insert in 
the Constitution itself a distinction of color. 
An amendment, according to the dictionaries, 
is "an improvement" — "a change _ for the 
better." Surely the present propo.sition is an 
amendment which like the crab goes Ijackward. 
Such is its appearance when you regard it 
merely in its form, without penetrating its sub- 
stance ; but here it is none the less oifensive. 
The case is plain. There are among us four 
million citizens, now robbed of all share in the 
government of their country, while at the same 
time they are taxed according to their means, 
directly and indirectly, for the support of the 
Government. Nobody can question this state- 
ment. And this bare-faced tyranny of taxa- 
tion without representation it is now proposed 
to recognize as not inconsistent with funda- 
mental right and the guarantee of a republican 
government. Instead of blasting it you go for- 
ward to embrace it as an element of political 

power. . -, , 

If, by this, you expect to mduce the recent 
slave-master to confer the right of suflrage 
without distinction of color, you will find the 
proposition a delusion and a snare. He will 
do no such thing. Even the bribe you offer will 
not tempt him. If, on the other hand, you 
expect to accomplish a reduction of his politi- 
cal power, it is more than doubtful if you will 
succeed, while the means you emplo.v are un- 
worthy of our countr/. There are tricks and 
evasions possible, and the cunning slave-master 
will drive his coach and six throughyour amend- 
ment stuffed with all his representatives. Should 
he cheat you in this matter, it will only be a 
proper return for the endeavor on your part 
to circumvent him at the expense of fellow- 
citizens to whom_ you are bound by every 
obligation of public faith. 

I know not if others will see this uncertainty 
as I see it •, but there are two practical conse- 
quences having a direct influence on the times, 
which all must see as following at once from 
' the adoption of the so-called amendment. In 
the first place, it will be a present renunciation 
of all power under the Constitution to apply the 
remedy for a grievous wrong, when the remedy, 
even according to your own recent example, is 
actually in your hands. You ha\ e already in 
this Chamljcr, only last Friday, decreed civil 
rights without distinction of color. Who can 
doul)t, that by the same title you may decree 
political rightsalsojwithoutdistiiictiouofcolor? 
But, liaving the power, it is your duty tooxcr- 
cise it. You cannot evade tiiis duty witliout 
becoming partakers in the wrung. And this 
brings me to the second practical consequence 
whicLi must ensue from llie aduj)tion of this 
proposition. You will hand oven- wards and 
allies, through whom tJie lleijublic has been 
saved, and therefore our saviors, to the control 



of vindictive enemies, to be taxed and governed 
without their consent ; and this you will do for 
a consideration " nominated in the bond," by 
virtue of which men may do a great wrong, 
provided they will submit as a quidpro quo to 
a proportionate abridgment of political power. 
Who does not admire the English patriot who 
once said that he would give his life to serve 
his country, but he would not do a mean thing 
to save it. I hope Ave may act in this spirit. 
Above all do not copy the example of Pontius 
Pilate, who surrendered the Saviour of the 
World, in whom he found no fault at all, tOT)e 
scourged and crucified, while he set at large 
Barabbas, of whom the gospel says in simple 
words, "Now Barabbas was a robber." 

I speak with a sincere deference for those val- ■ 
ued friends from whom I differ ; but I submit 
that the time has come at last when we should 
deal directly and not indirectly with the great 
question before us, and when- all compromise 
of Human Plights should cease, and especially 
there should be no thought of a three-headed 
compromise, which, after degrading the Con- 
stitution, renounces a beneficent power essen- 
tial to the safety of the Republic, and, lastly, 
borrowing an example from Pontius Pilate, 
turns over a M'hole race to sacrifice. These 
objections I now present briefly on the thresh- 
old, without argument, and I advance to the 
main question which must dominate this whole 
debate. By way of introduction I send to the 
Chair a counter-proposition, which I desire to 
have read. 

The Secretary read the following joint reso- 
lution : 

A joint resolution carrying out the {ruavantce of a 
republican form of government in the Constitution 
of the United States, and enforcing the constitu- 
tional amendment for thepruUibilion of slavery. 
Whereas it is provided in the Constitution that tho 
United St.ates shall guaranty to every State in the 
Union arepublicanfonn of government; and whereas 
by reason of thelailure of certain Statesto maintain 
governments which Congress might recognize, it h.as 
become the duty of tho United States, standnig in the 
place of guarantor, where the principal has made a 
lapse, to secure tosuch Statcsaccording to the leiiuire- 
ment of tho guarantee, governments loimblicau in 
form ; and whereas further, it is i)rovided in a recent 
constitutional an\endment that Congress may "en- 
force" tho prohibition of slavery by "appropriate 
legislation," and it is important to this end, that all 
relics of slavervshould bcremovcd, inchulingall dis- 
tinction of rights on account of color: Now.therefori.. 
to carry out tho guarantee of a republican Itirm of 
government and to enforce the prohibition of slavery, 
Bi: it rrHolv'il /<?/ '/('• Senair and J/ousr- of Hrpresent- 
(itimnoftlu! Unii'd Stairs of Ahierica in ConurcKi as- 
xnnilcd, Tliat tberoshallbe no Uligarohy, Aristocracy. 
Caste, or Monopoly invested with peculiar privileges 
and powers, and there shall be no denial ol nghts, 
civil or political, on account of color or race any- 
where within the limits of thu I nitoil Slates or the 
jurisdiction thereof; but nil poisons thcreia shall bo 
conal bclorotho law, whether in tlic court-room or 
at the ballot-box. And this statuto, made in pur- 
suance of the Constitulicm, sball bo tho supreme law 
of tho land, anything in tiiu Constitution or laws of 
any State to the contrary notwilhstaudmg. 

Mr. SQMNEIl. Mr. President, in opening 



this great question, I begin by expressing a 
heart-felt aspiration that the day may soon 
come, when the States lately in rebellion may 
be received again into the copartnership of 
political power and the full fellowship of the 
Union. But I sed too well that it is vain to^ 
expect this day, which is so much longed for, 
until we have obtained that security for the 
future, which is found only in the Equal Rights! 
of All, whether in the court-room or at thel 
ballot-box. This is the Great Guarantee, wit+pJ 
out which all other guarantees will fail. This 
is the sole solution of our present troubles and 
anxieties. This is the only suflScient assurance 
of peace and reconciliation. To the establish- 
ment of this Great Guarantee, us a measure of 

Ksafety and of justice, I now ask your best at- 
tention. 

The powers of Congress over this subject arc 
as ample as they are beneficent. From four 
specific fountains they flow — each one sufficient 
for the purpose — all four swelling into an irre- 
sistible current, and tending to one conclusion : 
first, the neces&ity of the case, by which, accord- 

_ ing to the analogies ofthe' "Territories," disloyal 
States, having no local government, lapse under 
the authority of Congress ; secondly, the Bights 
of Vrar, which do not expire or lose their grasp, 
except with the establishment of all needful 
guarantees ; thirdly, the constitutional injunc- 
tion to guaranty a llepublican Form of Govern- 

^ment; and, fourthly, the constitutional amend- 
'ment by which Congress, in words of peculiar 
energy, is empowered "to enforce" the aboli- 
tion of slavery " by appropriate legislation." 
According to the proverb of Catholic Europe, 
all roads lead to Rome, and so do all these powers 
lead to the jurisdiction of Congress over this 
whole subject. No matter which road you take, 
you arrive at the same point. Two of these 
powers have already been discussed exhaust- 
ively. The latter have been less considered, 
and it is on these that I shall speak especially 
to-day. I propose, with the permission of the 
Senate, to show the necessity and duty of ex- 
ercising the jurisdiction of Congress so as to 
secure that essential condition of a Republican 
Government, the Equal Rights of All. And I 
put aside, at the outset, the metaphysical ques- 
tion, worthy of the schoolmen in the dark ages, 
whether certain States are in the Union or out 
6f the Union. This is a question of form and 
not of substance, of words only and not of facts ; 
for the substance is clear and the facts arc un- 
answerable. All are agreed, according to the 
authority of President Lincoln, in his latest 
utterance before his lamented death, that these 
States have ceased to be " in practical relations 
with the Union ;" and this is enough to sustain 
the jurisdiction of Congress, even without the 
plain words of the Constitution in two separate 
texts. ' . 

Necessity and duty commingle. If v.diat is 
necessary is not always according^to duty, surely 



duty is always a necessity. On the present 
occasion they unite in one voice for the Great 
Guarantee. It is at once a necessity and a duty. 
Glancing at the promises of the fathers, I shall 
exhibit: Jirst, the overruling necessity of the 
times ; and secondly, the positive mandate of 
the Constitution, compelling us to guaranty 
"a republican form of government," and thus 
to determine what is meant by this require- 
ment ; all of which has been fortified by the 
constitutional amendment authorizing Congress 
to enforce the abolition of slavery. 

PROMISES OF THE FATHERS. 

In the life of a nation, as in that of an indi- 
vidual, there are special moments when out- 
standing promises must be performed under 
peril of ruin and dishonor. Such is the present 
moment in tho life of our Republic. There are 
sacred promises beginning with our history yet 
unperformed, and now the hour has sounded 
when continued failure on our part will open 
the door to a long train of woes. And there 
areyet other promises recently made for the 
national defense against a wicked rebellion, 
which, like those of an earlier date, areunper- 
iformed also. But the latter are all included in 
the former, so that our whole duty now centers 
in the performance of those sacred promises 
which are coeval with the national life. 

Our fathers solemnly announced the Equal 
Rights of all men, and that Government had no 
just foundation except in the consent of the 
governed; and to the support of the Declara- 
tion, heralding these self-evident truths, they 
pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their 
sacred honor. Looking at this Declaration now, 
it is chiefly memorable for the promises it then 
made._ Mighty words ! Fit utterance for the 
giant infant then born. Fit device for the great 
Republic taking its place in the family of kings. 
Fit lesson for mankind. And now the moment 
has come when these vows must be fulfilled to 
the letter. In securing the Equal Rights of the 
freedman, and his participation in the Govern- 
ment, which he is taxed to support, we shall 
perform those early promises of the Fathers, and 
at the same time the sujjplementary promises 
only recently made to the freedman as the con- 
dition of alliance and aid against the Rebellion. 
A failure to perform these promises is moral 
and political bankruptcy. It is repudiation of 
moral and political duties, ending in the repu- 
diation of the financial obligations of the coun- 
try. So arc your duties to the national freed- 
man linked with your obligations to the national 
creditor, that you cannot repudiate the former 
without impairing the value of the latter. Who- 
ever disowns any of the promises of the Repub- 
lic leads the way in repudiation. 

But you cannot be thus guilty. Even, if 
indilierent to the vows of the Fathers, neces- 
sit}', in harmony with the plain injunction of 
the Constitution, v,-ill constrain you. On this 



6 



there can be no doubt. You must perform 
these promises, and this brings me to the over- 
ruling necessity of the times. 

OVERRULING NECESSITY OF THE TIMES. 

I. Necessity is a peremptory instructor. It 
gives the law which no man can disregard. 
It will not hearken to apology or postpone- 
ment. With a voice of command it insists 
that its behests shall be obeyed. And now 
this very necessity speaks to us with familiar 
tones. 

Twice already, since rebel Slavery rose against 
the Republic, it has spoken to us, insisting; 
first, that the slaves should be declared free ; 
and secondly, that muskets should be put into 
their hands for the common defense. Yield- 
ing to necessity, these two things were done. 
Reason, humanity, justice were powerless in 
this behalf; but necessity was irresistible. And 
the result testifies how wisely the Republic 
acted. Without emancipation, followed by the 
arming of the slaves, rebel Slavery would not 
have been overcome. ^Viih these the victory 
was easy. 

At lastthe same necessity, which insisted first 
upon emancipation and then upon the arming 
of the slaves, insists with the same unanswer- 
able force upon the admission of the freedman 
to complete Equality before the law, so that 
there shall be no ban of color in court-room, 
or at the ballot-box, and government shall be 
li.xed on its only rightful foundation — the con- 
sent of the governed. Reason, humanity, and 
justice, all of which are clear for t.liis admission 
of the freedman, may fail to move you ; but you 
must yield to necessity, which now requires 
that these promises shall be performed. 

The demand which I now make stands on 
necessity. You must grant it, or you will peril 
the i<eace of this Republic, and postpone indef- 
initely the great day of security and reconcilia- 
tion. Therefore, in the name of that national 
safety, whicli is tlic supreme law, I begin my 
appeal. Whatever is required for the national 
safety is constitutional. Not only it viai/ be 
done, but it imi,it be done. Not to do it is to 
fail in duty. This Republic must be saved. 

When I speak of necessity, I mean that over- 
ruling compulsion which cannot be disobeyed. 
In the present case it is compounded of moral 
duty and the instinct of self-jircserv;ition. 'I'he 
moral duty t()i)eribrm tli(>se))roniises is asjjlain 
as the decalogue. The instinct of self-preser- 
vation, impelling us to save the Republic, is in 
iiarmony with the requirements of moral duty. 
In denying justice now, you will not only be 
guilty of grievous wrong, but you will expose 
your country to incalculable calamity. 'J'he 
case is too clear for debate. 

The irresistible! argument for Kniaiicipation 
was always twofold: first, its intrinsic justice, 
and secondly, its necessity for the salcty of the 
Republic; all of which wa.s expressed by Pres- 



ident Lincoln in the closing words of his great 
Proclamation, when he said: 

"And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act 
of justice wnrranfed Inj the Constitution upon military 
nncexsity, I invoke the considerate judgment of man- 
kind and the gracious favor of Almighty God." 

Butthe argument forEnfranchisement, which 
is nothing but the complement of Emancipa- 
tion, is the same. Enfranchisement is not only 
intrinsically just, but it is necessary to the safety 
of the Republic. There is no reason, point, 
or suggestion once urged for Emancipation 
which may not be urged now for Enfranchise- 
ment. I shall not err if I say that Emancipa- 
tion itself will fail without Enfranchisement. 

By Enfranchisement I mean the establish- 
ment of the Equal Rights of All, so that there 
shall be no exclusion of any kind, civil or po- 
litical, founded on color, and the promises of 
the Fathers shall be fulfilled. Such an act will 
be, in the words of President Lincoln, " an act 
of justice warranted by the Constitution upon 
military necessity." 

As an act of justice, Enfranchisement has a 
necessity of its own. No individual and no 
people can afford to be unjust. Such an offense 
will carrj' with it a curse, which, sooner or later, 
must drag its perpetrator to the earth. Bu*' here 
the necessity from considerations of justice is 
completed and intensified by the positive re- 
quirements of the national safety, plainly in- 
volved in the performance of these promises. 

Look at the unhappy freedman blasted by the 
ban of exclusion. He has always been loyal, and 
now it is he and not the rebel master who pays 
the penalty. From the nature of the case, he 
must be discontented, restless, anxious, smart- 
ing with a sense of wrong and a consciousness 
of rights denied. He will not work as if taken 
by the hand aiul made to feel the grasp of friend- 
ship. He will be idle, thriftless, unproductive. 
Industry will suffer. Cotton will not grow. 
Commerce will not thrive. Credit will fail; 
nay, it will die before it is born. On the other 
hand, his rebel master, with hands still red with 
the blood of his fellow-countrymen, will be en- 
couraged in that assumption of superiority which 
is a part of the Barbarism of Slavery ; he will 
predominate as in times past; he will be exact- 
ing as of old ; he will be harsh, cruel, and vin- 
dictive; he will make the unprotected and from- ' 
bling freednmn sutler for the losses and disap- 
pointments of the Rebellion: lie will continue 
to insult and prostitute the wife and children 
who, in ceasing to be chattels, have not ceased 
to be dependents; he will follow the freedman 
to by-ways and to obscure places, where he 
will once again play the master and assert his 
ancient title as lord of tin; lash. Sccuiesof sav- 
age brutal'ty and blood must ensue. All tliis, 
whicli reason foretells, the short experience of 
a few months already confirms. And all this 
you sanction, when you leave the freedman 
despoiled of hit rights. 



But the frcedman, though forbearing and 
slow to anger, will not submit to outrage always. 
He will resist. Resistance will be organized. 
And here will begin the terrible war of races 
foreseen by Jefferson, where God, in all His 
attributes, has none which can take part with 
the oppressor. The tragedy of St. Domingo 
will be renewed on a wider theater, with bloodier 
incidents. Be warned, I entreat you, by this 
historic example. It was the denial of rights 
to colored people, after successive promises, 
which caused that fearful insurrection. After 
various vicissitudes, during which the rights of 
citizenship were conferred on free people of 
color and then resumed, the slaves at last rose, 
and here the soul sickens at the recital. Then 
luCame Toussaint L'Ouverture, a black of un- 
mixed blood, who pjlaced himself at the head 
of his race, showing the genius of war, and the 
genius of statesmanshija also. Under his mag- 
nanimous rule the beautiful island began to 
smile once more ; agriculture revived ; com- 
merce took a new start ; the whites were pro- 
tected in person and property : and a constitu- 
tion was adopted acknowledging the authority of 
France, but making no distinction on account 
of color or race. In an evil hour this policy 
was reversed by a decree of Napoleon Bona- 
parte. War revived, and the French army was 
compelled to succumb. The connection of St. 
Domingo with France was broken, and this 
island became a black republic. All this dreary 
'catalogue of murder, battle, sorrow, and woe 
began in the denial of justice to the colored 
race. And only recently we have listened to 
a similar tragedy from Jamaica, thus swelling 
the terrible testimony. Like causes produce 
like effects ; therefore, all this will be ours if 
we madly persist in the same denial of justice. 
The freedmen among us are not unlike the 
freedmen of St. Domingo or Jamaica ; they 
have the same ''organs, dimensions, senses, 
affections, passions." and above all, the same 
sense of wrong, and the same revenge. 

To avoid insurrection and servile war, big 
with measureless calamity, and even to obtain 
that security which is essential to industry, ag- 
riculture, commerce, and the national credit, 
you must perform the promises of the Repub- 
lic, originally made by our lathers, and recently 
renewed by ourselves. But duty done will not 
*'nly save you from calamity, and give you se- 
— curity ; it will also prepare the way for all the 
triumphs of the future, when through assured 
peace there shall be tranq;; illity_, prosperity, and 
reconciliation, all of which it is vain to expect 
without justice. 

The freedman must be protected. To this 
you are specially pledged l>y the Proclamation 
of President Lincoln, which, after declaring 
him "free,"' promises io maintain this free- 
dom, not for any limited period, but for all 
time. But this cannot be done so long as you 
deny him the shield oiimpartial laws. Let him 



be heard in court and let him vote. Let these 
rights be guarded sacredly. Beyond even the 
shield of impartial laws, he will then have that 
protection which comes from the conscious- 
ness of manhood., Clad in the full panoply 
of citizenship he will feel at last that he is a 
man. At present he is only a recent chattel, 
awaiting your justice to be transmuted into 
manhood. ,Jf you would have him respected 
in his rights, you must begin by respecting him 
in your laws. If yoti would maintain him in 
his freedom, you must begin by maintaining 
him in the equal rights of citizenship. 

And now the national safety is staked on this 
act of justice. You cannot sacrifice the freed- 
man without endangering the peace of the coun- 
try, and the stability of our institutions. Every- 
thing will be kept in jeopardy. The natioual 
credit will suffer. Business of all kinds will 
feel the insecurity. The whole land will gape 
with volcanic fire, ready to burst forth in a fatal 
flood. The irrepressible conflict will be pro- 
longed. The house will continue divided 
against itself. From all these things. Good 
Lord, deliver us! But, under God, there is 
but one deliverance, andthis is thorough justice. 

I have said that the national credit will 
suffer; but this does not disclose the whole 
financial calamity. It is idle to suppose that 
recent rebels, restored to the privileges of citi- 
zenship, will give their votes cordially for that 
national debt which has been incurred in the 
suppression of their rebellion, or that they will 
willingly tax themselves for the interest on those 
enormous outlays by which their darling Slavery 
has been overthrown. The evidence shows that 
they are already set against any such contribu- 
tion. As time advances, and their power is 
assured, in conjunction with northern sym- 
pathizers, they will openly oppose it ; or if they 
consent to recognize it, they will impose the 
condition that the rebel debt shall be recog- 
nized also. All this is inevitable, if you give 
them the power ; it is madness to tempt them. 
But they will not have the power if the prom- 
ises to the freedmen are performed. Here again 
justice to the freedman becomes a necessity. 

It is sometimes said that we must not require 
justice to the freedman in the rebel States, be- 
cause justice is still denied to the colored citi- 
zen in Connecticut and New York. Idle words 
of inconceivable utterance ; as if the two cases 
bore any imaginable resemblance. There are 
rivers in the North and rivers in the South, but 
who says that on this account the two regions 
are alike? The denial of justice to the colored 
citizens in Connecticut and New York, is wrong 
and mean ; but it is on so small a scale that it 
is not perilous to the Republic, nor is it vital 
to the protection of the colored citizen, and the 
protection of the national creditor. You are 
moved to Enfranchisement in Connecticut and 
New York, simply in order to do justice to a few 
indmduals ; but you are moved to it in the rebel 



8 



States, in order to do justice to multitudes, also 
to save the Republic, wliicli is imperiled by in- 
justice on such a gigantic scale, and to supply 
needful protection to the national f reedman and 
the national creditor. From'failure on our part 
there is in one case little more than shame, 
while in the other case there is positive danger 
to the Republic, involving the late of the na- 
tional freedman and the national creditor, to 
whom we are bound by the most solemn ties. 
To a good man injustice, even on a small scale, 
cannot be tolerable. He will feel the neces- 
sity of resisting it ; but where the victims are 
counted by millions, this necessity becomes a 
transcendent duty, quickened and invigorated 
by all the instincts of self-preservation. There- 
fore, I again say, for the national safety, do not 
fail to keep these promises. 

It is sometimes said that the Constitution of 
the United States expres.sly reserves to the 
States, the jiower of determining who shall 
vote, iDCcause it declares, that "the electors 
in each State shall have the qualifications re- 
quisite for electors of the most numerous branch 
of the State Legislature." But this assump- 
tion proceeds on the fatal error, that, at any 
time under the Constitution, which makes no 
distinction of color, there can be any such 
oligarchical distinction as a "qualification," 
founded on color. But even assuming that this 
• might be done in a period of peace, yet, beyond 
all doubt, at the present moment, from the ne- 
cess'ty of the case — from the Rights of War — 
from the Constitutional clause of guarantee — 
and from the Constitutional Amendment, Con- 
gi-ess, by its quadruple powers, is completely 
authorized to do all that it thinks best for the 
national security and the national faith in the 
rebel States. As well question Farragut in the 
maintop of his steamer — Sherman in his march 
across Georgia — or Grant in the field before 
Richmond, as question the authority of Con- 
gress on this occasion. But if the authority 
exists it must be exercised. 

GUARANTEE OF A BEPUBLICAN FOllM OF GOVERN- 
MENT. 

II. And this brings mc to the next form of 
this necessity and duty, as they appear in the 
guarantee clause of tlio Constitution. It is 
expr(!ssly declared that "the United States 
shall guaranty to every State iu this Union a Re- 
publican form of government." These words, 
when properly understood, leave no alternative. 
They speak to us ^^^th no uncertain voice. 

The magnitude of the question now before us 
may be seen in the postulate wilii which I begin. 
Assuming that there bus been a lapse of govern- 
ment in any State, so as to impose upon the 
United States the duty of executing this gnar- 
untee, then do I insist that it is tiie boiinden duty 
of the Un'ted States to see that sueli State has 
a '"Republican government," and, in the dis- 
charge of this boundcn duty, they must declare 



that a State, which in the foundation of its gov- 
ernment, sets aside* "the consent of the govr 
erned" — which imposes taxation without rep- 
resentation — which discards the principle of 
Equal Rights, and which lodges power exclu- 
sively with an Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Caste, or 
Monopoly, cannot be recognized as a " Repub- 
lican government," according to the require- 
ment of Afeierican Institutions. Even if it may 
satisfy some definition handed down from an- 
tiquity or invented in monarchical Europe, it 
cannot satisfy the solemn injunction of our Con- 
stitution. For this question I now ask a hear- 
ing. Nothing in the present debate can equal 
it in importance. Its correct determination will 
be an epoch for our country and for mankind. 

Believe me, sir, this is no question of theory ■ 
or abstraction. It is a practical question which 
you are summoned to decide. Here is the posi- 
tive text of the Constitution, and you must now 
affix its meaning. You cannot evade it ; you 
cannot forget it, without an abandonment of 
duty. Others iu vision or aspiration have dwelt 
on the idea of a Republic, and they have been 
lifted in soul. You must consider it. not merely 
in vision or aspiration, but practically as legis- 
lators, in order to settle its precise definition, 
to the end that the constitutional "guarantee" 
may be performed. Your powers and duties 
are involved iu this definition. The character 
of the Government founded by our fathers is 
also involved in it. There is another consider^' 
ation, which must not be forgotten, in affixing 
the proper meaning to the text, and determin- 
ing what is a " ILepublican government," you 
act as a court in tlie last resort from which 
there is no aj^peal. You are sole and exclusive 
judges. You may decide as you i^lease. Rarely 
in history has such an opportunity been offered 
to the statesman. You may raise the name of 
Republic to majestic heights of justice and truth, 
or you may let it drag low down in tlie depths 
of wrongand falsehood. You may makeit fulfill 
the idea of Jolni Milton, when he .said that "a 
commonwealth ought to be butas one huge Chris- 
tian personage, one mighty growth or stature 
of an honest man, as big and compact in virtue 
as in body ;" or you may let it shrink into the 
ignoble form of a pretender, with the name of 
Republic, but without its soul. 

OUIGIN OP THE GUARANTEE. '> 

Before considering this vital question, it will 
be proper to look -at the origin of this "guar- 
antee," and see how it obtained a place iu the 
Constitution. Perhaps there is no clause which 
was more cordially welconujd ; nor dues it ap- 
pear that it w.'is .sultjected to any serious criti- 
cism in the National Coiivontiou, or in any State 
Convention. It is not found in the Articles of 
Confederation. But we learn from the Feder- 
alist (No. 21) "that the wanf^of this provision 
was felt as a capital defect in the plan of the 
Confederation." Mr. Madison, in a private 



9 



record made in advance of the National Con- 
vention, and wliicli has only recently seen the 
light, enumerates among the defects of the Con- 
federation what he calls ' ' want of guaranty to the 
States of their Constitutions and la^YS against 
internal violence, ' ' and he then proceeds to anti- 
cipate danger from slavery, which could be coun- 
teracted only by such a " guarantee. ' ' In show- 
ing why this was needed he says that, "accord- 
ing to republican tlieori/, right and power being 
both vested in the majority, are held to be syn- 
onymous ; according to fact and experience, a 
minority may, in an appeal to force, be an over- 
match for the majority," and he then adds, in 
words which furnish a key to the "guarantee " 
Kafterwards adopted, "where slavery exists the 
/•e^v/.'^>//c«HM(?o;-.i/becomesstillmore fallacious;" 
(Madison's IFritings, vol. i, p. 322) — thus show- 
ing (hat, at its very origin, it was regarded as a 
check upon slavery. 

Hamilton was not less positive than Madison. 
In his sketch of a Constitution, submitted to 
the National Convention at an early stage of 
its proceedings, this ' ' guarantee ' ' will be found, 
and in the elaborate brief of his argument on 
the Constitution, (Hamilton's Works, vol. ii, 
p. 403,) it is specified as one of its "miscella- 
neous advantages." The last words of this re- 
markable paper are "guarantee of Republican 
Governments." Randolph, of Virginia, in his 
^sketch of a Constitution proposed the "guar- 
'antee," and, in a speech setting forth the evils 
of the old sj'stem, he said that "the remedy 
must be in the republican principle.'''' (Elliot's 
Debates, vol. v, pp. 127, 128.) Colonel Mason, 
of ^'irginia, taking up the same strain, said 
that, though the people might be unsettled on 
some points, they were settled as to others, 
among which he put foremost "an attachment 
io republican governments^ {Ibid, 217.) 

The proposition in its earliest form was ' ' that 
a republican government, and the territory of 
each State, ought to be guarantied by the Uni- 
ted States to each State." {Ibid, VIS.) This 
was afterward altered so as to read, "that a 
republican Constitution and its existing laws 
ought to be guarantied to each State by the 
United States. ' ' Gouverneur Morris made haste 
to say that the proposition in this form was 
■^'very objectionable," and he added that he 
should be very unwilling that such laws as 
" exist in Rhode Island should be guarantied. 
{Ibid, 332. ) After discussion, it was amended, 
on tlie motion of Mr. Wilson, the learned and 
philosophical delegate from Pennsylvania, af- 
terward of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, so as to read, "that a rcpuhlican form 
of government shall be guarantied to each State, 
and that each fitate shall I)e protected against 
foreign and domestic violence," {Ibid, 333;) 
and, in this form, it was unanimously adopted. 
{Journal of Convention, 113-189.) Afterward 
it underwent modifications in the Committee of 
Detail and the Committee on Style, {Ibid, 381, ) 



until it received the final form which it now 
has in the Constitution, as follows : 

" Tlie Unif/d StateniiJtall flitrii'cinh/ to every State inthis 
Unioiia lUpubllcan furmof aovernment, andshall pro- 
tect each ot them a!,'ainst invasion; and on applica- 
tion of tbeLegislature.orofthe Executive, when the 
Lesislatare cannot bo convened, against domestic 
violence." 

Thus stands the ' ' guarantee. ' ' If any further 
reason be required for Its Introduction into the 
Constitution It will be found in the prophetic 
language of the Federalist : 

"Itmaypossiblybcaskcd, what need there could he 
of such a precaution and whether it may not become 
a pretext for alterations in the State governments 
without the concurrence of the States themselves. 
These questions admit of ready answers. If the inter- 
positiou of the General Government should not be 
needed, the provision for such an event will be a 
harmless superfluity only in the Constitution. But 
who can say wlint experiment may be produced by the 
caprice of particular Slates, by the ambition of enterpris- 
ing leaders, or by the intrigue and influence of foreign 
Powers?"— The Federafist, No. xxi;_see also Story's 
Commentaries on the Constitution, vol. ii, sec. 1811. 

The very crisis herein anticipated has arrived. 
"The caprice of particular States," and "the 
ambition of enterprising leaders" have done 
theirworst. And now the "guarantee " must 
be performed, not only for the sake of Indi- 
vidual States, but for the sake of the Union 
to which they all belong, and to advance the 
declared objects of the Constitution, specified 
in its preamble. 

The text of this great undertaking Is worthy 
of study. No stronger or more comprehensive 
words could be employed, whether we regard 
the object, the party guarantying, or the party 
guarantied. The express object is a "republi- 
can form of government. ' ' This Is plain enough. 
The party guarantying is not merely the Exec- 
utive or some specified branch of the National 
Government, but "the United States," or in 
other words,, the Nation. The Republic, which 
is the impersonation of all, guaranties a "re- 
publican form of government," and every 
branch of the National Government must sus- 
tain the " guarantee," Including especially Con- 
gress, where is the collected will of the peoi^le. 
The obligation is not less broad, when we con- 
sider the party guarantied. Here there can be 
no evasion. 1'he ' ' guarantee' ' is not merely for 
the advantage of individual States, but for the 
common defense and the general welfare. It 
Is a "guarantee" to each In the interest of all; 
and, therefore a ' ' guarantee' ' to all. And such 
is the solidarity of States In the Union, that the 
good of all Is Involved in the good of each. 
¥ov each and all, then, this "guarantee" mu!»t 
be performed when the casus foederis arrives. 
As a guai'antor, the Republic, according to a 
familiar principle, is called to act on the default 
of the party guarantied ; l)ut when the default 
has occurred, then the duty Is fixed in all its 
amplitude. 

WHAT IS A KEPUIU.ICAX GOVERXMENT? 

The question then returns, what is "a Ke- 



10 



publican form of government, ' ' according to the 
requirement of the Constitution of the United 
States? Mark, if you please, that it is not the 
meaning of this term, according to Plato and 
Cicero ; not even according to the examples of 
history; nor according to the detinitions of mo- 
narchical writers or lexicographers ; but what 
is "a Republican form of government" accord- 
ing to the requirements of the Constitution of 
the United States? Of course these important 
words were not introduced and unanimously 
adopted without a purpose. They must be in- 
terpreted so as to have a real meaning. Any 
interpretation which renders them insignificant 
is on this account to be discarded as irrational 
and valueless, if not dishonest. They cannot 
be treated as a phrase only ; nor as a dead letter ; 
nor as an empty figure-head. Nor can they be 
treated as a mere profession and nothing more, 
so that the Constitution shall merely seem to be 
republican ; reversing the old injunction " to be 
rather than to seem " — Esse quam videri. They 
must be treated as real. Thus interpreted they 
become at once a support of Human Rights and 
a balance-wheel to our whole political system. 

REJECTED DEFINITIONS. 

In determining their signification, I begin by 
putting aside what is vague, unsatisfactory, and 
inapplicable, in order to bring the inquiry di- 
rectly to American Institutions. 

I put aside all illustration derived from the 
speculations of ancient philosophers, because, 
on careful examination, it appears that the term 
"Republic," as used by them, was so absolutely 
different from any idea among us as to exclude 
their definition from the debate. This capti- 
vating term is of Roman origin. It is the same 
as Commonwealth and means the public inter- 
ests. As orginally employed, it was not a spe- 
cific term, describing a particular form of gov- 
ernment, but a general term, embracing all 
Governments, whether kingly, aristocratic, dem- 
ocratic, or mixed. Its equivalent in Greece was 
"Polity," which was the general term for all 
Governments. Therefore, the definition of a 
Republic, according to these ancient masters, 
is simply the definition of an organized Govern- 
ment, whether kingly, aristocratic, democratic, 
or mixed. Following this definition the words 
of the Constitution arc only the "guarantee" 
of an organized Govcrninont, without d(;t(;rmin- 
ing its character. 'J'his, of course, leaves open 
the very question now under consideraliini. 
• While tlie nomenclature of ancient philoso- 
pher.s cannot be cited in determining the defi- 
nition of a Republic, we may, nevertheless, be 
encouraged by them in demanding that all gov- 
ernment, under whatever name it may be called, 
shall be to cstaijlish justice and secure thegen- 
Hral welfare. 'J'hus i'lato, who commenced 
th(!se int(;resting speculations, is pleased to 
liken government to u Just man, delighting in 
justice always, however he may be treated by 



others ; and the philosopher insists that every 
man is a government to himself, as every com- 
munity is a government to itself According 
to him, every well-ordered man, like every well- 
ordered community, is a Republic. Aristotle, 
in a different vein, and with more precision, 
says, in most suggestive words, that "every 
i:)olitical society is a sort of community or part- 
nership," (Aristotle's Politics, book i, cap. 
i,) that "the object of all good government is 
the common good," (book iii, cap. iv, ) that 
"it is the best plan to admit to a participation 
in the governing power as many as can be ad- 
mitted with safety ; for where large numbers are 
excluded, there will be discontent and danger," 
(Ibid, book iii, cap. vi,) and that "when tbci 
One, the Few, or the Many govern well and 
for the common good, theirs must be called a 
good Government." (lb.) Cicero gives to the 
same ideas new fervor and expansion, when he 
says, "A Republic is for the good of the whole 
people. But by the people I do not mean every 
assemblage of men, anyhow gathered together, 
but an assemblage united by a common accord 
respecting rights, and a common enjoyment of 
the public weal." [De liepublica, cap. xxv. ) 
And then again, in another place, the Roman 
philosopher says, "Liberty can have no certain 
dwelling in any state except where the laws are 
equal and the power of public opinion is su- 
preme." (/6i(i,cap.xxxi.) But all these require' 
ments or aspirations are applicable to any Gov- 
ernment, of whatever form ; and it is well known 
that Cicero recorded his preference for a Gov- 
ernment tempered by an admixture of the three 
different kinds ; so that -we are not advanced in 
our definition, unless we insist that our Re- 
public should have all those virtues M-hich are 
accorded to the ideal Commonwealth. And 
yet there are two principles which all these 
philosophers teach us: the first is justice, and 
the second is the duty of seeking the general 
welfare. 

I next put aside the examples of history, as 
absolutely fallacious and inapplicable. Gov- 
ernments in all ages have been called Repub- 
lics, which can be no example to us. Indeed, 
there is hardly a government, from that of the 
great hunter, Nimrod, down to insulted and 
partitioned Poland, which has not been calW. i 
a " Repul)lic." In 177-!, only a few years before 
the adoption of the XatioiKil Constitution, Rus- 
sia, Austria, and Prussia, after dividing Poland, 
undertook to establish certain fundamental laws 
for this conquered country, one of which was 
as follows: 

"The {rovcrniiKMit of Poliind shiill bo forever free, 
indcponili-nt ((;ir/ ;v7)i//i/((ff/i ui /<,,»/. The tnioprin- 
cijile of SiiiJ povcniiiK'nt euiisist.iii:,' in the stiict e.\e- 
cution of its laws ami tin: e(|iiilil)riuiii of tlio three 
estates, niiiiiclj'. tin- kinp, the si'iiatc, and tlie eques- 
trian order." — ./«/<» Atlamx'n Worlitt, vol. iv, i>. 370. 
But a governmint thus composed cannot be 
recognized in this debate as "republican in 
form." 



11 



At the adoption of the Constitution, the most 
competent persons, who disagreed on other 
things, agreed in discarding these examples. 
Alexander Hamilton and John Adams met here 
■ on common ground. The former, in the brief 
of his argument on the Constitution, thus ex- 
hibits the various forms of government to which 
the term "Republic'' has been applied : 

"A republic, a word used in various senses. Has 
been applied to aristocracies and monarchies. (1.) To 
Rome under kines. (2.) To Sparta, though a Senate 
for lite. (3.) To Carlhaco, th.)iigh thesame. (4.) To 
United Netherlands, thoush Stadtholdcr, and hered- 
itary nobles. (5.) To Pulaud, tlioujh :iristocraey and 
monarchy. (6.) To Great Britain, though a monar- 
chy." — Hamilton, Works, vol. ii, p. 463. 

John Adams, in his Defense of the American 
K Constitutions written immediately anterior to 
the adoption of the National Constitution, thus 
concurs with Hamilton : 

" But of all the words in aH languages, perhaps there 
has been none so much abused in this way as the words 
Jiepublic, Commonwealth, and Popular State. In the 
Eerum imbi icanuii Collcctio, of which there are fifty 
and odd volumes, and many of them very incorrect, 
France, Spain, and Portugal, the four great empires, 
the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman, and even 
the German, are all denominated 'Republics.'" — 
John Adams's Works, vol. v, i). 453. 

In his old age, the patriarch expressed himself 
in the same sense and with equal force : 

"The customary meaning of the words reptihlic 
and commoiuccalth have been infinite. They have been 
applied to every government under heaven; that of 
'^ Turkey and that of Spain, as well as that of Athens 
andof Rome, of Geneva and San Marino," — Ibid, vol. 
X, p. 378; Letter of 3Ut March, 1819. 

And then again he said : 

"In some writing or another of mine, I happened 
curreiitecalnmo, to drop the phrase, The word republic, 
as it is used, may signify anything, everything, or 
nothing. For this escape I have been pelted, for 
twenty or thirty years, with as many stones as ever 
were thrown at St. Stephen, when St. Paul held the 
clothes of the stoners. But the aphorism is literal, 
strict, solemn truth. To speak technically, or scien- 
tifically, if you will, there are monarchical, aristocrat- 
ical, anddemocratieal republics. The government of 
Great Britain and that of Poland are asstrictly repub- 
lics as that of Rhode Island or Connecticut." — Ibid, 
X, 379 ; Letter of 30th April, 1819. 

In this latter remark, Mr. Adams simply re- 
peats what he says in his treatise, when he calls 
England and Poland "monarchical or regal 
republics.'''' {Ibid, vol. iv, p. 359.) 

It is plain that our fathers, when they adopted 
^ the " guarantee" of "a republican form of gov- 
ernment" intended something certain, or which 
at least, if not certain on the foce, could be 
made certain. But this excludes the author- 
ity of incongruous and inconsistent examples. 
They did not use words to signify "anything, 
everything, or nothing;" nor did they use words I 
which were as applicable to England and Po- 
land as to the United States. 'J'herefore, I can- 
not err when I put aside all these examples, 
■which, however they may illustrate the defini- 
tion of Republican Government in times past, 
are utterly out of place as a guide to the inter- 
pretation of our Constituticu. Something bet- 



ter must be found for this purpose; nor is it 
wanting. 

I put aside also the definitions of European 
writers and lexicographers anterior to the Con- 
stitution; for all of these have the vagueness 
and uncertainty of political truth at that time 
in Europe. Among these none is of higher 
authority than Montesquieu, who brought to 
political science study, genius, and a liberal 
spirit. But even this great writer, who profited 
by all his predecessors, quickens and elevates 
without furnishing a satisfactory guide. He 
taught that ' ' virtue' ' was the inspiring principle 
of a Republic, and by "virtue," hesaysthathe 
meant the love of country, which, he says, is the 
love of Equality. This is beautiful; but, with 
curious inconsistency, he proceeds to include 
"democracy" and "aristocracy" under the 
term "Republic," the former being where the 
people in mass have the sovereign , power and 
the latter "where the sovereign power is in the 
hands of a j^art of the people. ' ' When defining 
"democracy" he expresses the importance of 
the suffrage as one of the fundamentals of gov- 
ernment, saying, among other things, that it 
was as important to regulate by ichom the suf- 
frage should be given, as in a monarchy to know 
who is the monarch. (Esprit des Lois, liv. ii, 
chap. 2 and 3.) But among all these glimpses 
of truth there is no definition of " a Republican 
form of government" which can help us essen- 
tially in interpreting the Constitution. Surely 
an ai'istocracy, "where the sovereign power' is 
in the hands of a jJart of the people,^^ cannot 
find a just place in our political system. It 
may be a " Republican form of government," 
according to Montesquieu, but it cannot be 
according to American institutions. 

One of the ablest of the predecessors of Mon- 
tesquieu, in modern times, was the Frenchman, 
John Bodin, who wrote nearly two centuries 
earlier. He uses the term " Republic" as it is 
used by the ancient writers, to embrace Mon- 
archy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, which he 
calls "three kinds of Republics" — trivrii re- 
rumpublicarum genera. If the Republic is in 
the power of one, penes uniiin. it is a monarchy ; 
if in the power of a few, jjcnes 2)ancos, it is an 
aristocracy; if in the power of all, p&nes vni- 
versos, it is a democracy. Proceeding further 
he says, that a Democracy is "where all or 
the major part of all citizens, major pars om- 
nium civitim, collected together, have the su- 
preme power." (Bodin dc Jiej^iiblica, lib. ii, 
cap. 1.) Here the philosopher plainly follows 
the rule of jurisprudence in the case of corpo- 
rations : but this definition seems to sanction the 
exclusion of a part of the citizens, less than a 
majority, while it is inadequate in other respects. 
It says nothing of equality of rights or of that 
great touchstone of the republican idea, the de- 
pendence of taxation upon representation. 

There are other definitions which may be put 
aside. Thus, for instance, it has been oftea 



12 



said, tliat a Republic is " a government of laws 
and not of men." and this saying found favor 
■with some among our fathers. (John Adams's 
Works, vol. iv, p. 106.) Long before them 
Aristotle had declared, that such a government 
"would be the kingdom of God." But this 
condition, though marking an advanced degree 
of civilization and of course essential to a Re- 
public, cannot be recognized as decisive. Qn 
its face it is vague from its comprehensiveness. 
It is enough to say that it would embrace Eng- 
land, whose government our fathers renounced 
in order to build a Republic. And still further, 
it would throw its shield over a government 
which had "framed iniquity into law." This 
will not do. 

There is also a plausible definition by MiUer, 
the learned author of the work on the British 
Constitution, who states, hypothetically, that 
by ReimMic may be meant "a government in 
which there is no king or hereditary chief ma- 
gistrate." (Miller's I'7e!t', vol. iii, p. 326.) But 
this again must be rejected as leaving aris- 
tocracies and oligarchies in the category of 
republics. 

Sometimes it has been said, that a Govern- 
ment with an elective Chief Magistrate is a 
Republic. Here again nothing is said of aris- 
tocracy or oligarchy, which obviously may co- 
exist with an elective Chief Magistrate, as in 
the case of Venice, where the elected Doge was 
surrounded by an oligarchy of nobles ; and in 
the case of Holland, where the elected Stadt- 
holder was a prince surrounded by princes. 
But there are other instances which make this 
definition unsatisfactory, if not absurd. The 
Pope of Rome is an elective Chief Magis- 
trate : so also is the Grand Lama ; but surely 
the States of the Church are not republican, 
nor is Thibet. 

Rejecting the definition founded on the elect- 
ive character of the Chief Magistrate, we must 
also reject another, founded on "the sover- 
eignty of more than one man." It has been 
said positively, by one who has written much on 
this subject, that "the strict definition of a Re- 
public is that in which the sovereignty resides 
in more than one man." (John Adams's Woi-Jcs, 
vol. X, p. 378.) But this strict definition will 
embrace aristocracies and oligarchies. 

I conclude these rejected definitions with 
that of Dr. Johnson in his Dictionary, which 
appeared before American Indopendence : 

" Ufipublick; (1) — Commonwealth, slate in, xohich the 
power in /n'lynd in vwre than one, (2) — Common interest,- 
thepiihllclc." I 

Tlicse definitions are all as little to the pur- 
pose as the " vulgar error," chronicled by Sir 
Thomas Browne, that storks lived only in re- 

Sublics, or the saying of Rous.scau, at a later 
ay, that a society of gods would govern them- 
selves democratically, or the remark of John 
Adams, that "all good government is, and 
must be republican." It is evident that we 



must turn elsewhere for the illumination which 
we need. If others thus far have fulled, it is 
because they have looked across the sea instead 
of looking at home, and have searched foreign 
history and example, instead of simply recog- 
nizing the history and example of their own 
country. They have imported inapplicable 
and uncertain definitions, forgetting that the 
Fathers, by positive conduct, by solemn dec- 
lara tions, by declared opinions, and by public 
acts, all in harmony and constituting one over- 
whelming testimony, have exhibited their idea 
of a Republican Government in a way which is 
at once applicable and certain. They are the 
natural interpreters of their own Constitution. 
Mr. Fox, the eminent English statesman, ex- . 
claimed on one occasion in debate that, if by 
some interposition of Divine Providence all the 
wise men who ever lived in the world were as- 
sembled together, they could not invent even 
a tolerable Constitution ; meaning, of course, 
that a Constitution must be derived from habits 
and convictions, and not from any invention. 
There is sound sense in the remark ; and it is 
in this spirit that I turn from a discussion which 
has only this value, that it shows how little 
there is in the past to interpret the meaning of 
the Fathers. 

TRUE SOURCE OF DEFINLTIOX. 

Every Constitution embodies the principles of 
its framers. It is a transcript of their minds. 
If its meaning in any place is open to doubt, or 
if words are used which seem to have no fixed 
signification, we cannot err if we turn to the 
framers ; and their authority increases in pro- 
portion to the evidence which they have left on 
the question. By a "' republican form of govern- 
ment" our fathers plainly intended that Gov- 
ernment v.'hich embodied the principles for 
which they had struggled. Now, if it appears, 
that, through years of controversy they had in- 
sisted on certain principles as vital to free gov- 
ernment even to the extenfof encountering the 
mother country in war ; that afterward, on 
solemn occasions, they had heralded these jn-in- 
ciples to the world as "self-evident truths;" 
that also, in declared opinions, they had sus- 
tained these principles ; and that, in public acts, 
they had embudied these principles — then is it 
bej'ond dispute, that these principles mustliave 
ent,ered into the idea of that government which 
they took pains to place under the ' ' guarantee' ' 
of the United States. But all these things can 
bo shown unanswerably. 

In these words of hj'pothesis, I have already 
foreshadowed the four dilferout heads under 
which these principles may l)e seen : First, as 
asserted by the lathers throughout the long 
revolutionary controversy which culminated 
in war; Sccoitdl//, as announced in solemn 
declarations ; T/n'rdli/, as sustained in declared 
opinions; and Fourthly, as embodied in public 
acts. 



13 



PRIXCIPLES ASSERTE'^ BT OUR FATHERS PRECED- 
ING IHE REVOLtTTIOJf. 

(1.) I begin with the principles asserted by 
our fathers throughout the protracted contro- 
versy that preceded the Revolution. If Sena- 
tors ask why our fathers struggled so long in 
coutroversj' with the mother country, and then 
went forth to battle, they will iind that it was 
to establish the very principles for which I uow 
contend. To secure the natural rights of men, 
and especially to vindicate tlio controlling 
maxim that there can be no taxation without 
representation, they fought with argument and 
then with arms. Had these been conceded at 
that time there would have been no Lexington 
or Bunker Hill, and the Colonies would have 
continued yet longer under transatlantic rule.'. 
The first object proposed was not independence 
but the establishment of these principles ; and 
when at last independence was proposed, it 
was because it became apparent that these 
principles could be secured in no other way/ 
Therefore, the triumph of independence was 
the triumph of these principles, which neces- 
sarily entered into and became the animating 
soul of the Republic which was then and there 
born. The evidence is complete, and if I 
dwell on it with some minuteness, it is be- 
cause of its decisive character on the present 
occasion. 

The great controversey opened with the pre- 
tension on the part of Parliament to tax the 
colonies. This pretension was first disclosed 
to Benjamin Franklin as early as 1754. It was 
at the time a profound secret ; but this patriot 
philosopher, whose rare intelligence embraced 
the natural laws of government not less than 
those of science, in a few masterly sentences 
exposed the injustice of taxation without rep- 
resentation. For a moment the ministry shrank 
back ; but at last, when the power of France 
had been humbled, and the colonies were no 
longer needed as allies in war, George Gren- 
ville, blind to principle and only seeing an in- 
crease of revenue, renewed the irrational claim. 
The colonies were to be taxed by the Parliament 
in which they had no representation. Two mil- 
lion and a half of people — for such was the 
colonial population then — were to pay taxes 
without any voice in determining them. The 
men of that day listened to the tidings with dis- 
may. They saw in this ministerial outrage the 
overthrow of their libeiiies, whether founded 
ouiij^tural rights or on the rights of British sub- 
jects. In their conclusions they were confirmed 
by two names of authority in British history — 
Algernon Sidney and. I ohn Locke, each of whom 
had solemnly asserted those liberties which were 
now in danger. One had borne his testimony 
on the scaffold ; the other in exile. 

Sidney, in his Discourses on Government, 
did not hesitate to say "that God has left to 
nations the liberty of setting up such Govern- 
ments as best pleased themselves," and then 



again, ' ' that all just magistratical power is from 
the people." (Discourses, p. 30, 14.) Such 
words were calculated to strengthen the senti- 
ment of human freedom ; but it was Locke who 
gave fornuil expression to the very principles 
which were now assailed. In a famous passage 
of his work on Civil Government, written dur- 
ing his exile in Holland, this eminent English- 
man bore his testimony thus : 

"It is true government cannot be supported with- 
out great charge, aud it i.s fit every one who enjoys 
his share of the protection should pay out of his estate 
his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it 
must be \yith his own consent: i. e., the consent of 
the majority, giving it either Ijij themxi^lvef or their rep- 
resentatives chosen by them; for, if any one shall claim 
a power to lay and levy taxes on the peor>le by his 
own authority and icithout xueh consent of the people, 
he therehy invades the fundamental law of property 
and subverts tlie end of government; for what prop- 
erty have I in that which another may by right take, 
when he pleases, to himself?" — Locke's Civil Govern- 
ment, book ii, eh. 7; ch. 14. 

Here is a plain enunciation of two capital 
truths: first, that all political society stands 
only on the consent of the governed; aud, sec- 
ondly, that taxation without represeirtation is 
an invasion of fundamental right. It was these 
truths that our fathers embraced in the contro- 
versy before them, and these same truths, 
happily characterized byHallam as "fertile of 
great revolutions and perhaps pregnant with 
more," are as fertile and as pregnant now as 
then. 

Unquestionably, Sidney and Locke exercised 
more influence over the popular mind, j^reced- 
ing the revolution, than any other v,-riters. They 
were constantly quoted, and their names were 
held in reverence. But their authority has not 
ceased. As they spoke to our fathers, they now 
speak to us. Sicut pafribus, sic nobis. 

The cause of human liberty, in this great con- 
troversy, found a voice in James Otis, a young 
lawer of eloquence, learning, and courage, 
whose early words, like the notes of the morn- 
ing bugle mingling with the dawn, awakened the 
whole country. Asked by the merchants of Bos- 
ton to speak at the bar against ■wTits of assist- 
ance, which had been issued to enforce ancient 
Acts of Parliament, he spoke, not only as a law- 
yer, but as a patriot. His speech was the most 
important, that, down to that occasion, had ever 
been made on this side of the ocean. An emi- 
nent contemporary, who was present, says, 
"No harangue of Demosthenes or Cicero ever 
had such effect upon the globe as this speech." 
(John Adams's Woi'ks, vol. x, page 233.) It 
was the harbinger of a new era. For five hours 
the brilliant orator unfolded the character of 
these Acts of Parliament ; for five hours he 
held the court-room in attentive and ;istonished 
admiration ; but his effort ascended into states- 
manship, when, after showing that tiie colonists 
were without representation in Parliament, he 
cried out, that, notwithstanding this cxclusioUi 
Parliament had undertaken "to im])ose taxes 
and enormous taxes, burdensome, oppressive 



14 



taxes, ruinous, intolerable taxes," and, then, 
glowing with a generous indignation at this in- 
justice, he launched that thunderbolt of polit- 
ical truth, " Taxation without rejoresentation is 
Tyranny." From the narrow court-room where 
he spoke, the thunderbolt passed, smiting and 
blasting the intolerable pretension. It was the 
idea of J ohn Locke ; but the fervid orator, with 
tongue of liame, had given to it the intensity of 
his own genius. He had found it in a book of 
philosophy ; l)ut he sent it forth as a winged 
messenger, blazing in the sky. 

John Adams, who, as a young man just 
admitted to the bar, was present at this scene, 
dwells on it often with sympathetic delight. 
There, in the old Town House of Boston, sat 
the five judges of the province, with Hutchinson 
as Chief Justice, in robes of scarlet, with cam- 
bric bands and judicial wigs ; and there too in 
gowns, bands, and tie-wigs were the barristers. 
Conspicijous on th"e wall were full-length por- 
traits of two British Monarchs, Charles II and 
James II ; while in the corners were the like- 
nesses of Massachusetts Governors. In this 
presence the great oration was delivered. The 
patriot lawyer had refused compensation. "In 
such a cause," said he, "I despise all fees." 
He spoke for his country and for mankind. 
Fii-mly he planted himself on the rights of man, 
which he insisted were, by the everlasting law 
of nature, inherent and inalienable ; and these 
rights he nobly proclaimed, were common to 
all, without distinction of color. To supjiose 
them surrendered in any other way than by 
equal rules and general consent was to suppose 
men idiots or madmen, whose acts are not bind- 
ing. But he especially flew at two arguments 
of tyranny: first, that the colonists were "vir- 
tually" represented; and secondly, that there 
was such a difference between direct and in- 
direct taxation, that while the former might be 
questionable, the latter was not. To these two 
apologies he replied: first, that no such phrase 
as "virtual representation" was known in law 
or constitution — that it is altogether a subtlety 
and an illusion, wholly unfounded and absurd 
— and that we must not be cheated by any such 
phantom or any other fiction of law or politics, 
or any monkish trick of deceit and hypocrisy; 
and, then, in the second place, he said with the 
same crushing force, that, in the absence of 
representation, all taxation, wliether direct or 
indirect, whether internal or external, whether 
on land or on trade, was equally obnoxious to 
the same unhesitating condemnation. The 
effect of this effort was electric. The judges 
were stunned into silence, and postponed their 
judgment. The peoi)le were aronscil to a frenzy 
of {)Utriotism. "American Independence," 
Bays John Adams, in the record of his impres- 
sions, " was theii and there born : the seeds of 
patriots and heroes were tlien and there sown, 
to defend the vigorous youth. Every man of 
a crowded audience appeared to go away as I 



did, ready to take arms against writs of assist- 
ance. Then and there was the first scene of 
the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims 
of Great Britain. Then and there the child 
Independence was born." (J. Adams's Works, 
vol. X, p. 247; see also pp. 293-375; Tudor's 
Life of Otis, pp. 71-77.) But this great birth 
is inseparably associated with the principle, 
then and there declared, that " Taxation with- 
out representation is Tyranny." 

From this time forward Otis dedicated him- 
self singly to the cause he had so bravely up- 
held, and the popular heart clove to him. He 
became the favorite of his fellow-countrymen. 
His arguments were repeated ; his words were 
gratefully adopted, and the saying, "Taxation 
without representation is tyranny," became a '' 
maxim of patriotism. In May 17U1, only a few 
weeks after this utterance, he was chosen a rep- 
resentative of Boston, in the Legislature, by an 
almost unanimous vote. The Crown officers 
were dismayed by this most significant election, 
and one of them, speaking with prophetic lam- 
entation, said that "It would shake the prov- 
ince to its foundation," on which John Adams 
remarked, many years later when some of its 
results were already visible, ' ' That election has 
shaken two continents and will shake four." 
{Ibid, p. 248.) Of course this was simply be- 
cause it affirmed and invigorated a practical truth 
of government, by which all the people are lifted 
to political power. At his new post of duty, Otis 
became the acknowledged leader, constant, fer- 
vid, eloquent, and according to his own lan- 
guage "daring to speak plain English." While 
still declaring an unhesitating loyalty to the 
Crown, and even pledging "the last penny and 
the last droj) of blood, rather than, by any back- 
wardness, his Majesty's measures should be em- 
barrassed," he made haste to announce in words, 
where humor blends with truth, "that God 
made all men naturally equal; that the ideas of 
earthly superiority are educational and not in- 
nate ; that no government has a right to make 
hobby-horses, asses, and slaves of the subject, 
nature having made sufficient of the two former 
for all the lawful purposes of man, from the 
harmless peasant in the field to the most refined 
politician in the cabinet; but none of the last, 
wiiieh infiillibly proves they are unnecessary." 
But the case would have been imiierfectly stated, f. 
if th<! patriot rej)resentative had not once more 
cried out against taxation without representation 
and warned against the calamities which uuisf 
follow from this unquestionable tyranny. This 
early debatcis preserved in a pami)hlet, printed 
in 17(12, and entitled "A \ indication of the 
House of Kepresentatives of Massachusetts Bay, 
l)y .l:iines Otis, Esq.," which we jiretold, by an 
eniineiit authority, contains, in solid substance, 
all that is to be found in the Declaration of 
llighta and Wrongs, issued by Congress in 1774, 
the Declaration of IndeiienJence in 1770, and 
the subsequent writings of those political phil- 



15 



osophers who upheld the national cause. (J. 
Adams's Work.% vol. x, pp. 300-312.) 1 ar- 
don me if I dwell too minutely on this history. 
I do it only to illustrate the issue of principle 
actually made in the controversy with the mother 

country. . • -,-ri 

The controversy still continued, when in 1 < h-i, 
the orator, who had already by voice and pen 
maintained the cause of his country, put forth 
another publication, entitled, " The Eights ot 
tl*3 Colonists asserted and proved. ' Mark, it 
you please, the vigor of the title. The rights 
of the colonists are not only ''asserted, but 
"proved." Reprinted in London, this pam- 
• phlet was read by Lord Mansfield, Chief Jus- 
tice of England, and was answered by Soame 
Jenyns, a partisan writer of the Crewu. _ ihe 
copy I now hold in my hand has th« iiopnnt ot 
London, and is marked third edition. Perhaps 
all things considered, it is the most remarkable 
pamphlet of our country and one of the most 
remarkable ever written. Recent events, ver- 
ifvin<^ the traths it so early announced, elevate 
its ptace in history. Here will be found the 
same vital principles, enforced with learning 
and eloquence, which Otis had announced at 
the bar in the case of writs of assistance, and 
then again in the debates of the legislature ; and 
here may be seen, not only the truths asserted 
by our fathers, but the unanswerable arguments 
by which they were vindicated. Even an ab- 
stract would be too long for this occasion ;_ but 
the character of this Defense of the American 
People, not unlike Milton's famous Defensio 
pro Ponulo Anglicano, will appear in a few 
passages, where, as in gleams, may be discerned 
\hQ Idea of a Republic. _ 

I do not pause on the assertion, "that every 
man of sound mind should have his vote, or 
the authority which he invokes, when he says, 
"Lord Coke declares that it is against Magna 
Carta and against the franchises of the land for 
freemen to be taxed but by their own consent. 
Nor do I dwell on that admirable statement ot 
much in little, where he says, "the first and 
simple principle is Equality and the Power o 
the Whole." (Page 14.) The Equality of All 
and the Power of All ! The two buttresses of a 
iust o-overnment. I come at once to the plain 
statement of fundamental right. Here are two 
sentences : 

"The Supreme Power cannot take from any man 
any part of his property xoithout cotuent m person, or 

^''WlllltcZtto be laid on the people i.« by their 
ccmaent in x)erson, or by representntion. —rage 61. 
Such, he says, are " the first principles of law 
and justice and the great barriers of a free 
state," and then he adds, "I ask, I want no 
more." And these principles he claims for 
all, without distinction of color. 

" The colonists are by the law of nature free-born, 
as indeed arc white and black. Does . t follow that it 
is right to enslave a man because ho is black [ Will 
short curled hair, like wool, instead of Christian hair. 
as it ia called by those whoso heart is as hard as the 



nether mill-stone, help the argument? Can any logi- 
cal inference in favor of slavery be drawn from a Hat 
nose, a long or a short ia.ce'i"—Paae 29. 

Assuming that these rights are common to 
all, whether white or black, he then insists that 
any taxation, whether direct or indirect, with- 
out representation, is only another form ot 
slavery : 

" I can sec no reason to doubt but that the imposi- 
tion of ta$es. whether on trade, or on land, or houses, 
or ships, or real or personal fixed or floatin? property 
in the colonies, is absolutely irreconcilable yHh he 
rights of the colonists, as British subjects and „s men. 
I fay men, for in a state of nature no man can take 
my property from me without^my consent, //he doe, 
he deprives meofmy liberty and '»"^\t ™f ' * ^'''i^" .^^! 
very act of taxing, exercised over those who are not 
represented, appears to me to deprive them oi one of 
fhcir m?st essential rights as freemen ; and it continued 
seems to be in effect an entire disfranchisement of eveiy 
flvTrioht. For what one civil right is worth a rush 
after a man's property issubject to bo taken from him 
at pleasure, without his consent / —I'age 6i. 

Such was the voice of James Otis, who was 
our John the Baptist. It was he who went 
before in this great controversy. He first stated 
the case between the colonies and the mother 
country, and first developed the principles m 
issue. But though first, he was not long alone. 
Conspicuous among his followers was ^^amuel 
Adams, that austere patriot, always faithful and 
true, who desired to make Puritan Boston 'a 
Christian Sparta. ' ' He was remarkajile for the 
simplicity, accuracv, and harmony of his style, 
and on this account often held the pen for the 
Leo-islature or for the Town meeting. In obe- 
dience to the latter, he drew up instructions to 
the representatives of Boston, which were after- 
ward adopted in Faneuil Hall, where repeating 
the very arguments of Otis, he says, H our 
trade may be taxed, why not our lands / \Miy 
not the produce of our lands and everything we 
possess or make use of?" And then, advan- 
cing in the subject, he asks, "If taxes are laid 
upon us in any shape, icithout our having a 
Iccial representation where they are laid, are we 
not reduced from the character of free subjects 
to the miserable state of tributary slaves/ 
(John Adams's Works, x, p. 294.) In asking 
this question he leaves no room to doubt the 
answer it deserved. 

Meanwhile Franklin, as the general agent ot 
the colonies, had been maintaining the same 
principles in England. But the ministry, hur- 
ried on liythat fatal folly which leads to de- 
struction, -persevered in their pretension. Ihe 
stamp act was passed, and for the hrsttime in 
our historv papers were to bear stamps, in order 
to swell flic revenue of the Crown. Massachu- 
setts remonstrated against the tyranny, in forma 
resolutions, adopted unanimously, wherein it 
is declared, " that by the law of nature no man 
has a ri^ht to impose laws more than to levy 
taxes upon another; that the freeman pays no 
tax as the freeman submits to no law, but such 
as emanates from the body in which he is rep- 
resented ; that the ParUament possessed no 



16 



right of enacting laws binding upon tlie colo- 
nies, and that whatever legislative power»to that 
effect had been exercised b^^ the Parliament had 
been abusive and unlawful.''^ (John Adams's 
Works, vol. i, p. 78.) In an address to the 
royal Governor, the Legislature, after setting 
forth the injustice of the stamp act, proceeded 
to say: "We must beg your Excellency to ex- 
cuse us from doing anything to assist in the 
execution of it." The people in town meet- 
ings took up the strain and all united against 
the act. But Massachusetts was not alone. A 
writer in 'Virginia, catching the spirit of Otis, 
declared, in an elaborate pamphlet, that it was 
an ''essential principle of the English Consti- 
tution that the subject shall not be taxed with- 
out his consent ;^^ and then, again, quoting the 
words of another, said: "Men have natural 
and freemen legal rights which they may justly 
maintain, and no legislative authority can de- 
prive them of." [Considerations on ilie pro- 
priety of Taxes in the British Colonies, p. 5.) 
The Legislature of Virginia, even before Massa- 
chusetts, adopted resolutions kindred in spirit, 
which were moved by Patrick Henry and he- 
roically carried by his eloquent voice, even 
against the menacing cry of "treason." Thus 
spoke Virginia in one of these resolutions, ex.- 
posing the true issue in question, and insisting 
that taxation and representation were insepa- 
rable : 

"licnolved, That thetaxationofthcpenplc by them- 
selves or by pp.rnons cho>ien lo represent them, who can 
only know what taxes the people are able to bear, or 
the euFicst method of raisins (hem, and must them- 
selves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is 
the onlii necnrity ngainut hurdeiinonie titration and the 
distinsnishing characteristic olBritishiieedom, with- 
out which the ancient constitution cannot exist." 
— Wirt' a Life of Patrick Henry, p. 57. 

Pennsylvania, by her House of Assembly, 
spoke also to the same effect as follows : 

"Renohcrl, Ncm. Con. That this House think it their 
duty thus firmly to assert with modesty and decency, 
their i»//^r';H</-i(7/t(s,thatthcir posterity mavlcarn and 
knoiv that it was not with their consent iuid Mcriuies- 
ceneo, <hat rniy taxesshonkl bo levied on them by any 
person but their own representatives." 

_ The controversy still proceeded. At the in- 
vitation of Massachusetts a Congress assembled 
at New York in October 1705, where were del- 
egates from Massachusetts, Connecticut, New 
York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and South Car- 
olina, which, after a session of three weeks, 
adopted a declaration of colonial rights, where, ' 
among other things, it is declared: 

"That it iH inseparably essential to the freedom of 
a people and the undoubted ri^ht of Knglishmen, that 
no tax be impose^l on them hut milk their own consent, 
"'Iw'! nernnndlhi or by their reprexentatives." 

"That the jicoplo of tho cohjnies arc not, and from 
their biciilcircumstancescannot berei)rescntud in tho 
House ol Commons of Great iJritaiu." 

At last tiio stamp act w.-is repealed, but tho 
pretension of taxation was suspended rather I 
than abandoned. A ministerial jjartisan con- | 



tinned to urge the scheme in the following bare- 
faced words: 

" All countries, unaccustomed to t.axes. arc at first 
violently prepossessed against them, though the price, 
which they give lor their liberty, lilio au ox untamed 
to the yoke, they show at first a very stubborn neck, 
but by degrees become docile and yield a willing 
obedience." _ * * * * "America must be 
taxed. —Jmtice and JSeeessity of tamig tlie Ainerican 
Oolonies Demonstrated. London, 17t>6. 
_ As time advanced the old ajidaeity was re- 
vived ; and, under the lead of the reckless 
Charles Townsend, taxes were imposed by Par- 
liament on tea, glass, lead, paper and painters' 
colors. The old opposition in the colonies was 
revived also, and taxation without representa- 
tion was again denounced. Committees of cor- 
respondence were established and the work of 
organization began. The whole country was 
in a fever. _ Massachusetts, as in times past, 
did not hesitate to proclaim the true principle. 
At a Town meeting of Boston in 177l>. there 
was a declaration of rights, "which no man or 
bodyofmen, consistently with their own rights 
as men and citizens or members of society ,'^can 
for themselves give up or take away from oth- 
ers;" and here we meet again familiar words : 
" The supreme power cannot justly take from any 
man any part of his property without his consent in 
person or by his representatives."— Pofre 10. 

Against all Parliamentary taxation, as often 
as It showed itself, this was the impenetrable 
buckler that was raised. But the mother coun- 
try was perverse. Ship-loads of tea arrived. 
At Boston the tea was thrown into the harbor. 
The colonies entered into an agreement of non- 
importation. Then came troops, and the Bos- 
ton Port Bill, by which this harbor was vindic- 
tively closed tigainst commerce. The whole 
country, including even South Carolina, made 
common cause with Massachusetts. Gadsden 
exclaimed, " Massachusetts sounded the trum- 
pet, but to Carolina is it owing that it was at- 
tended to." And Virginia exclaimed, " We 
mil never he taxed but by our representatives. 
This IS the great badge of freedom, ^^■hether 
the people in Ijoston were warranted by justice 
when they destroyed the tea, we knowiiot; but 
this we know, that tiie Parliament, by their pro- 
ceedings, have made us and all North America, 
parties in the present dispute." (A\'irt"s Life 
of Patrick Henry, p. 9<j.) Meanwhile more 
troops arrived. All things portended strife; 
and yet the colonists did not ask for independ- 
ence. They only asked for tlieir rielits. insist- 
ing always that there should be no taxation 
without representation. " Tlie patriots of this 
provnice," said ,'01111 Adams in 1771, "desire 
nothing new^ they wish only to keep their old 
privileges. They were for one lumdred and 
fifty years allowed to tax tlieniselves. This 
plan they wish may continue forever. ' ' (John 
Adams's Works, vol. iv, p. 131.*) And thus 
stood the two parties face to face. 

Then came the Continental Congress, which 
at once put forth resolutions, where, after claim- 



li 



ing tla'e enjoyment of life, liberty, tind property 
as natural rights, it was insisted that the colo- 
nists could be bound by no law to which they 
had not consented by their representatives. 
Here was the original programme of Jame Otis : 
first the rights of men, according to natural 
laws ; and secondly, the principle that govern- 
ment, including of course taxation, depended 
on the consent of the governed. " The foun- 
dation of English Liberty and of all free govern- 
ment,'' said these resolutions, '"is aright in the 
people to participate in their legislative coun- 
cil." {American ^rc7«'fcs, 4th series, vol. i, p. 
822.) In harmony with these resolutions were 
the several addresses of the Continental Con- 
gress — to the people of Great Britain — to the 
people of the Province of Quebec — and to 
the king himself, each of which pleads for 
Human Rights in the largest sense. The 
address to the people of England begins by 
an appeal for '"the rights of men and the 
blessings of Liberty," and then insists "that 
no po\rer on earth has a right to take our 
property from us without our consent. ' ' {Ibid, 
p. 918.) The address to the people of the 
Province of Quebec, in similar spirit, says, 
" thejirst great right is that of the people hav- 
ing a share in their own government by their 
representatives, chosen by themselves, and in 
consequence of being ruled bylaw, which they 
themselves approve ; not by edicts of men over 
whom the)' have no control. This is a bulwark 
surrounding and defending their property." 
{Ibid, p. iydl.) And the address to the king 
has the same key-note when it says, " Duty to 
your ^Majesty and regard for the preservation 
of ourselves and our posterity, theprimary obli- 
gations of nature and of society command us 
to entreat your royal attention." {Ibid.) Thus 
constantly, down to the last moment, did our 
fathers set forth the principles which they 
sought to establish as essential to free govern- 
ment. Thus constantly did they testify to the 
cause for which I now plead. 

Answering voices came back from England, 
all showing the principles in issue. The right 
of taxation Avas asserted ; but there were many 
who disguised the tyi'anny by assuming that the 
colonies were "virtually represented." Sir 
James Marriott, the Admiralty Judge, insisted 
boldly, that, since the lands of the colonies, 
according to their charters, were held in socage 
tenure, "as of the royal manor of East Green- 
wich in Kent." and since East Greenwich was 
represented in Parliament, therefore our fathers 
were represented in Parliament. Perhap^that 
spirit of legal technicality, which is satisfied by 
mere form at the expense of reason, was never 
more strikingly illustrated than in this sense- 
less argument. The whole ]n-etension was 
scouteii by Mr. Pitt, afterward Lord Chatham, 
in terms of indignant eloquence. "The idea," 
said he, "of s. virtual rei)resentation of Amer- 
ica in this House is the most contemptible that 
ever entered into the head of a man. It does not 



deserve a serious refutation." As the contro- 
versy continued, and especially as those mas- 
terly state papers — the addresses of the Con- 
tinental Congress — reached England, t.hc min- 
isters of the king were put on the defensive. 
They retained as their advocate none other than 
Dr. Johnson, who, for a sura of money, lent 
the pen which had written Rasselas, the Vanity 
of Human Wishes, and the English Diction- 
ary, to a rancorous attack on the principles of 
our fathers. Its concentrated spirit was all ex- 
pressed in its title, "Taxation no Tyranny." 
Another pamphlet appeared in reply, with the 
epigraph, ' " llesistance no Rebellion, ' ' embody- 
ing the idea that, where there is taxation with- 
out representation, resistance is justifiable; and 
thus was issue joined even at London. This 
wasinlTTo. Already the "embattled farmers" 
had gathered at Lexington and Runker Hill; 
already Washington had drawn his sword at 
Cambridge, as Commander-in-Chief and gen- 
eralissimo of the new-born armies ; already war 
had begun. At last to the defiant watch word 
"Taxation no Tyranny," sent from across the 
sea, our fathers returned that other defiant 
watchword "Independence." Rutin seeking 
Independence, they did not turn their backs 
upon the principles asserted throughout the 
long controversy. Independence was the means 
to an end, and that end was nothing less than 
a Republic, with Liberty and Equality as the 
animating principles, where the government 
should stand on the consent of the governed, 
or, which is the same thing, where there should 
be no taxation witliout representation ; for here 
was the distinctive feature of American Institu- 
tions. 

SOLEMN' DECLARATIONS OF THE FATIIEES. 

(2.) The principles, heralded through fifteen 
years of controversy, were not forgotten when 
Independence was declared ; and here I come 
to the second head of these illustrations. 

It sometimes happens that men fail in support 
of the cause to which they are pledged, or con- 
tent themselves with something less than the 
truth. Rut it was not so with our fathers, In 
declaring Independence they continued lo)'al 
to their constant vows. The natural rights of 
all men and the consent of the people as the 
only just foundation of government, which 
James Otis had first announced; which Sam- 
uel Adams had maintained with splendid sim- 
plicity ; which Patrick Henry had vindicated, 
even against the cry of " treason, "_ and which 
had been affirmed by legislative bodies and pub- 
lic meetings, were embodied in the opening 
words of the Declaration. 'Jlicrc they stand, 
like a mighty overture to the new Republic, in- 
terpreting, inspiring, and filling it with their 
transforming power. These are the words : 

"We hold those truths to bo nelf-evidml ; that all 
men arc crrnted equal: thnt Ihey arc cmlowoil by tlicir 
Creator with oortain inalienablo rislits; tluit among 
these are life, liliorty, ami the pursuit oi hapiiincss: 
that, to secure these rights, govcrnmeuts arcinstituted 



18 



amttog men, deriving their Just powers from the consent 
of the governed." 

■ Foremost is the Equality of all men. Of 
course, iu a declaration of rights, no such su- 
preme folly was intended as that all men are 
created equal in form or capacity, bodily, or 
mental ; but simply that they are created equal 
in rights. This is the first of the self-evident 
truths that are announced, leading and govern- 
ing all the rest. Life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness are among inalienable rights ; but 
they are all held in subordination to that pri- 
mal truth. Here is the starting-point of the 
whole, and the end is like the starting-point. 
In announcing that Governments derive their 
just powers from the consent of the governed, 
the Declaration repeats again the same procla- 
mation of Equal Rights. Thus is Equality the 
Alpha and the Omega, in which all other rights 
are embraced. Men may not have a natural 
right to certain things, but most clearly they 
have a natural right to impartial laics, without 
which justice, which is the end and aim of gov- 
ernment, must fail. Equality in rights is the 
first of rights. It was because these self-evident 
truths, beginning with Equality, had been set at 
naught by Great Britain, in her relations with 
our fathers, that Independence was declared. 
To these truths, therefore, was the new Govern- 
ment solemnly dedicated, as it assumed its sep- 
arate and equal station among the Powers of 
the earth. Do you ask for the definition of 
"Republic?" llere it is by patriot lexicog- 
raphers, whose authority cannot be questioned 
by us. 

As the war of Independence began with a dec- 
laration of principles, so it ended with a like 
declaration. At its successful close, the Con- 
tinental Congi-ess, in an address to the people, 
by the pen of James Madison, thus announced 
the objects for which it had been waged, and 
thus supplied another definition of the new 
government : 

" Let iibe remembered that it has been the pride and 
the boast of America, that the riohtsfor which she has 
contended ircri' thr rinlilnnf h iiinini vntarr. By the bless- 
ing oif til e Author ot til esc Uigli Is, tluy havo prevailed 
over all oiiiHisitiim \uu\J(inii the bctis nt thirteen In- 
dependent States. No instance has hcretoloro oc- 
curred, nor can any instance be expected hereafter to 
occur, in which tlie niiad ulturated furins of llijnibUcan 
Ci'jV'riiiiicnt can pretend to so fair an ojiportunity of 
justifying themselves by their fruits. In this view 
thecitizens of the United States are responsible for 
the greatest truth ever conliled to a nolitical soci- 
ety." — Journal of Continental Congress, April, 1783, vol. 
viii, p. -01. 

Such was the sublime declaration. It was for 
the "rights of human nature" thatour fathers 
went forth to Ijattle, and tliese rights are pro- 
claimed to '■form the basis of thirteen inde- 
pendent Slates." But foremost among these 
rights is Equality, including of course tiie equal 
right of all to a voice in the (Jovernmeiit. And 
thus is the licpublic whicli our fatlwrs, with 
pride and Ijoast, then gave as an example to 
nu^d^ind. 



The same spirit appears in the National Con- 
stitution, which, by its preamble, asserts prac- 
tically the same sentiments. Here it is : 

" AVe, the people of the United State?, in order to 
form a more perfect Union, establish Jii'-^tice, insure 
domestic tranquillity,provide for the common defense, 
promote the general welfare, and secure the blcssing.s 
of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, do ordain 
and establish this Constitution for the United States 
of America." 

Thus, according to this proclamation, the 
Constitution was ordained, not to create an oli- 
garchy or aristocracy, not to exclude certain 
persons from the pale of its privileges, not to 
organize inequality of rights in any form, but 
"to establish justice," which is Equality ; "to 
insure domestic tranquillity," which is vain 
without justice ; "to provide for the common 
defense," which is the defense of all : " to pro- 
mote the general welfare," which is the welfare 
of all ; and " to secure the blessings of Liberty' ' 
to all the people and their posterity, which is 
to give to all the complete enjoyment of rights, 
foremost among which is Equality. Here, then, 
is another authoritative definition of the Re- 
public which was formed. 

Thus has our counfa-y testified to its idea of 
a Republic, not only throughout its long day-s 
of controversy, but in these solemn decla- 
rations, which are in themstlves monumental 
acts. 

OPIXIOXS OF TUB FATHERS. 

(3.) I am now brought to consider how these 
same principles have been sustained by eminent 
characters, whose names are historic, all testi- 
fying to the character of that government which 
they founded and ujiheld. In their weighty 
words you will find a definition, constantly 
repeated, which is in harmony with all the 
promises of the Fathers, whether in contro- 
versy or in these solemn instruments which are 
among the very title-deeds of the Republic. 

I begin with Benjamin Franklin, who saw all 
questions of government with a surer instinct 
than anyotlicr person in our history. As early 
as 178t), while still a young man, he wrote 
an article on government, which was published 
in the Pennsylvania Gazette, where will be found 
these words : 

" Popular Governments hare not been framed with- 
out the wisest reasons. It seemed highly fitting that 
the conduct of magistrates, created by and for the pood 
of the whole, .should bo made liable to tlio inspection 
and •^n'na^'Xv cxsion of the loholc."— Franklin's Works, 
vol. ii, p, 209. 

It is for the good of the tchole, and not for an 
odious oligarchy or an aristocratic class that 
our patriot .speaks, and in these words we find 
foreshadowed the idea of a republican govern- 
ment ; bjit it was in tlie discussions on the 
stamp act, after Otis had fulmiued his flaming 
boll, that we find a fuller and more precise 
dermilion. Here it is, as adopted, if not writ- 
ten, liy Franklin in 17tJH: 

" That every man of the commonalty, excci»t infantfe, 
insane persons, and criminals, is of common ^9ight« 



19 



and by the laws of God, a freeman and entitled to the 
free enjoyment of liberty. Thn( liberty or frrrdomvnn- 
sists ill having an- aftual tiharc in the ttppointmcnt of 
those who frame lite laws,&ru\ who are to be the ffu;ird- 
ians of every man: life, jiropcrty, and peace; for the 
a^^of one man i.s as dear to him as the a// of another; 
and the poor man has an equal right, but more need 
to have representatives in the Legislature than the 
rich one. 

"That they who have no voice nor vote in the elect- 
ing of representatives do not enjoy lihertu; hut are 
abnolutebj enslaved to those who have voles and to their 
representatives,- for to be enslaved is to have govern- 
ors whom other men have set over us, and be subject 
to laws made hy the representatives of others, viithont 
having had representatives of our own to give con- 
sent in ou,r behalf." — Franklin's Vt'orks, vol. ii,p.372. 

In these emphatic words wiJl be found a com- 
plete vindication of the equal right of represen- 
tation, as essential to free government, so much 
so, that where this does not exist, Liberty does 
not exist. 

Jefferson has followed Franklin in the same 
V^n, expressing himself with greater fervor. 
The author of the Declaration of Independence 
could not do otherwise. Constantly he testifies 
to his idea of a Republic. Thus he wrote to 
•Alexander von Humboldt, under date of June 
13, 1817, affirming the rights of the majority 
as "the first principle of republicanism," and 
assuming the principle of Equal Rights : 

" The first principle of republicanism is, that the 
lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every 
society of individuals of equal rights. To consider the 
will of the society constrained by the majority of a 
single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all 
lessons in importanee.yetthelast which is thoroughly 
learned. This law oneedisregarded.nootherremaius 
but that of force, which ends necessarily in military 
despotism." — Jefferson's Worlcs, vol. vii, p. 75. 

In another letter to John Taylor, of Caroline, 
dated May 28, 1816, he thus defines a Republic: 

"Indeed, it must be acknowledged, that the term 
rejndjlie is of very vague application in every lan- 
guage. \Vitness the self-styled republics of Holland, 
Switzerland, Ui-noa, Venice, Poland. Were I to as- 
sign to this term a precise and definite i<lea, I would 
say, purely and simply, it moans n (lorernmentby its 
citizens in (»o>.-.v. ai'tintr directly and [icrsi in ally, accorrf- 
ing to rides estalJislied by the majority : and that every 
other Government is more or less rei)ublican, in pro- 
portion as it lias in its composition more or less of this 
ingredient of the direct action of the citizens."— J(/- 
ferson's Works, vol. vii, p. 605. 

Here again, while confessing the unquestion- 
able vagueness of the term according to old 
examples, he assumes that in a Republic all the 
citizens must have a voice. And in another 
place he thus- indignantly condemns denial of 
representation : 

"And also that one half of our brethren who fight 
and pay taxes are excluded, like Helots, from the 
rights of representation, as if society were instituted 
for the soil and not for the men inhabiting it, or one 
half of these rou/il dispose of the riylils and the will of the 
other half icithout their consent." — Ibid, p. 607. 

Thus did he scout the whole wretched preten- 
sion of oligarchy and monopoly by which citi- 
zens are deprived of equal rights. 

Madison was colder in nature than Jeffer- 
son, but they were associates in opinion, as in 
political life. Tke former ia the debates on 



the Constitution thus condemned the denial of 
rights on account of color : 

" We have seen the mere distinction of color, made 
in the most enliirhtened period of time, a ground of 
the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man 
over man." — Elliot's Debutes, vol. iv, p. 162. 

Speaking directly of the right of suffrage, he 
uses the following language : 

" The right of suffrage is certainly one of the funda- 
mental articles of republican government, and ought not 
to be left to be regulated by the legislature. A grad- 
ual abridgment of this right has been the mode in 
which aristocracies have been built on the ruins of 
popular forms." — Elliot's Debates, vol. v, p. 388. 

Thus declaring himself against "aristocra- 
cies," he naturally recognized the true idea, and 
here he was perplexed by the question of a prop- 
erty qualification, which he says in one j)lace, 
' ' does not satisfy the fundamental principle that 
men cannot be justly bound by laws in making 
which they have no part." {Ibid, p. 580. ) And 
then again in another place, "It violates the 
vital principle of free government, that those 
who are to be bound by laws, ought to have a 
voice in making them, and the violation would 
becomemorestrikinglyunjust as the law-makers 
become the minority." {Ibid, p. iJ82.) Thus 
completely recognizing the great American 
principle that just government can stand only on 
"the consent of the governed," he is brought 
to this conclusion: 

"Under every view of the subject, it seems indis- 
pensable that the mass of citizens should not be with- 
out a voice in making the laws which they arc to obey 
and in choosing the magistrates who are to administer 
them."— /6i(/, p. 583. 

In one of the most remarkable chapters in the 
Federalist, Madison gives expansion to this idea 
in his formal definition of a llepublic : 

"If we resort for a criterion to the diflFerent princi- 
ples on which ditt'erent forms of government arc estab- 
lished, we may define a republic to be, or at least may 
bestow that name on, « government which derives all 
its poirers directly or indirectly from the great body of 
the people, and is administered by ofiiccrs holding their 
oQiees during i)leasure, for a limited time, or during 
good Ijcliavior. It is essential for such a government 
that it be derived from the great body of the society, not 
from an inconsiderable iinmort ion, ou A l-'AVOUKD CLASS 
OF IT; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exer- 
cising their oppressions l)y a delegation of their pow- 
ers, tnidht asjiire totherank of republicans, and claim 
fur their government the honorable title of repub- 
lic. "—/'t(/(/-«^W, No. 39, by Madison. 

Thus, in these few significant words, does this 
authority teach that a Republic is a govern- 
ment " derived from the great body of the peo- 
ple," and not from "a favored class of it." 
Better words could not be found for the Ameri- 
can definition. 

Hamilton follows with, purliaps, equal au- 
thority. Though ap]>roachiiig political ques- 
tions from opposite points of view, we find him 
on this occasion uniting with Fraidvlin, .leifer- 
son, and Madison. Here is a glimpse of the 
definition he would supply: 

"As long as offices are open for all and uo eonsti- 
tutional rank is established, it is pure republican- 
ism." — Hamilton's Works, vol. ii, p. 47. 

Not for an oligarchy, but for all is a Republio 



20 



created. Then again lie testifies for Equal 
Riglits and against partial distinctions : 

" There can be no truer principle than this, that 
evenj individual of the communitii has an equal right to 
the protection of government," * * * * "We 
propose a free government. Can it be so, ii partial dis- 
tinctions are made?" — J bid, p. 418. 

And then again he says in positive words : 

" A share in the sovereignty of the State, which is 
exercised by the citizens at large in voting at elec- 
tions, is one of the most important risrhts of the sub- 
ject, a7id in a Republic ought to stand foremost in the 
estimation of the law. It is that right by which we ex- 
ist as a free people." — Hamilton, Works, vol. ii, p. 315. 

He then portrays the principles of the Revo- 
lution as follows : 

"They taught the inhabitants of this country to risk 
their lives and fortunes in asserting their liberty, or, 
in other words, their right in a share in the government. 
That portion of the sovereignty to which each indi- 
vidual is entitled, can never be too highly prized. It 
is that for which we have fought and bled. — Ibid. 

More could not be said in the few words em- 
ploj'ed. But it is when Hamilton comes to con- 
sider the Constitution of the United States and 
to expound its provisions, that, while recog- 
nizing the anomalous condition of Slavery, and 
exposing what he calls "the compromising 
expedient of the Constitution,'' by which "the 
sZare is divested of two fifths of the man,'' he 
yet declares "the equal level of free inhabit- 
ants,"' and announces " that if the laws are to 
restore the rights which have been taken away 
the negroes could no longer he refused an eqval 
share of representation icith the other inhab- 
itants.''^ Here are the important words: 

"It is only under the pretext that the laws have 
transferred the negroes into subjects of jiropcrty, that 
a place is disputed them in the computation of num- 
bers: AND IT IS ADMITTED TUAT IK THE I.AWS WERE TO 
BESTORK THIO RIGHTS WHICr. HAVK liKKN TAKEN AWAY, 
THE NEGROES COUI.U XO LONGER BE REFUSED AX EQUAL 
SHARE OE REPRESESTATIOX WITH THE OTHER INHAB- 
ITANTS." — The Federalist, No. 54, by Hamilton. 

Thus, according to Hamilton, if the slaves are 
restored to the rights which have been taken 
away — in other words, if tliey become free- 
men — they will be on the same equal level, and 
will be entitled to the same equal share of rep- 
resentation \^ith the other inhabitants. The 
two ideas of Equality and of a right to repre- 
sentation, which were so early and so constantly 
avowed by the Fathers, are here again recog- 
nized as essential conditions of government; 
and this is the true definition of a Republic. 

With these great representative names to 
illustrate the American idea of a Republic, 
I might close this catalogue. Surely this is 
enoitgh. But there are yet others, whose au- 
thority cannot be disregarded. 

HfTeisthe testimony of that inflexible spirit, 
who had thought and acted much, Samuel 
Adams, iu a letterto his kinsman,. John Adams : 

" That the sovereignty renidis in theproplf is a po- 
litical doctrine which I have iieverheurd an American 
politician scriouHly deny." •***•' We, 
the piuiilf, is the style of the Federal Constitution. 
They lulopled it ; and, conformably to it, they dele- 
gate the exercise of the powers of tfovernmeutto par- 



ticular persons, who, after short intervals, resign their 
powers to the people, and they will reelect them, or 
appointothers, asthey see fit." — John Adams's Works, 
vol. vi, p. 421. 

Here also is the testimony of another Re- 
publican, who signed the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, Roger Sherman, in a letter to John 
Adams : 

"What especially denominates it a republic is its 
dependence on Xh^public. or people at large, without 
any hereditary powers. But it is not of so much im- 
portance by what appellation the government is dia- 
tinguished, as to haveit constituted to secure the rights, 
■ji/ia advance thehappiness of the community," — Ibid, p. 
437. 

There also was John Adams himself, who 
was the least distinct of all the fathers on this 
question ; but we find in the introduction to his J 
Defense ofthe American Constitutions apassag« 
which is full of prophetic meaning. Here it la: 

"Thirteen governments, thus founded on the nat%e- 
ral autliority of the people alone, without a pretense ot 
miracle or mystery, and which arc destined to spread 
over the northern part of that whole quarter o? the 
globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rigJU* 
of manhind." — /. Adams's ^YorJc«, vol. iv, p. 293. 

Here is a plain assertion that our thirteen 
States were founded "on the natural authority 
of the people alone,'' and that they were des- 
tined to spread over all North America. 

Here also is a voice from South Carolina, in 
a speech of Charles Pinckhey, on the adoption 
of the Constitution : 

"Thodoctrine of representation is the fundamental i 
of a Republic." * * * * "As to the 
United Netherlands, it is such a confusion of states 
and assemblies, that I have always been at a loss 
what species of government to term it. According to 
my idea of the word, it is not a Republic ; f- r I con- 
ceive it as indispensable in a Republic that all author- 
ity should flow from the people." * * * * 
" A Republic is -where the people at large, either col- 
lectively or by representation, form the Legisla- 
ture." — Elliot's Debates, vol. iv, pp. 32G-328. 

Colonel Mason, of Virginia, who always 
spoke with so much point, said in the National 
Convention : 

"The true idea was that every man having evidence 
of atlaclnnoiit to and permanent common interest 
with the sorioty, ought to share in all its riglits aiKl 
duties."— A7/io<'« Debutes, vol. v, p. 397. 

Again we have a plain recognition of the rev- 
olutionary idea. Here, also, is another voice 
from Virginia. I quote the words of a Virijinitv 
writer on government — John Tsylor, of Caro- 
line : " r 

"The end of this guarantee is 'a republican fbrm 
of govcrumont.' The meaning of this expression is 
not so unsettled here as in other countries, because 
wo agree in one descriptive character as essential to 
the existence of a republican fnrm of trovci nment. 
This is rcjiresentaiion. We do nut ailniit ti (iovem- 
mrnttitbe even in itsorigin repubtiean, nnhxK it in intti- 
tuteil by representation; nor do we allow il to be SO, 
unless Its legislation is also f undcil uiiou rciirc-enta- 
t\on."—ConstrHclioii Construed, by Jidin Taylor, of 
Caroline, p. 312. 

I close this arra)% illustrative of opinion, by 
the words of Daniel Webster, iu harmony with 
the rest: 

"Now, fellow-citizens, I will venture to state in a 
few words what 1 take these American principles in 



21 



substance to be. They consist, as I think, in the first 
place, in the establishment of popular governments 
on the basis of representation." * « * * 
'* Th is reprtscntutioii in to be made as equal as circum- 
aiancesiciU allow."— Webster's Works, vol. ii, p. GUI. 

Thus, at every stage, from the opening, when 
Otis announced the master principle, "Taxa- 
tion without representation is Tyranny," all 
along to Daniel Webster, we find "represen- 
tation " an essential element in the American 
detinition of a republican Government. 

PUBLIC ACTS OF THE STATES. 

(4.) Fi'om authoritative opinions I now pass 
to public acts, which testify to the true idea of 
Republican Government. These public acts 
are of two different classes : first, by the United 
States, in their collective character ; and sec- 
ondly, by the States individually. 

Looking at the States, in their collective char- 
acter, we shall find that at the adoption of the 
National Constitution they had refused to rec- 
ognize any exclusion from the elective fran- 
chise on account of color or race. The Fathers 
knew too well the requirements of a Republican 
Government to sanction any such exclusion. 
Recognizing Slavery as a transitory condition, 
which would soon cease, they threw over it a 
careful oblivion ; but they were none the less 
jealous of the rights of all freemen. The slave 
did not pay taxes, and, so far as he was a person 
and not property, he was a part of the family 
of his master, by whom he was represented,_ so 
that the commanding principle of the Revolution 
was not disturbed in his case. But, on becom- 
ing a freeman, the slave stepped at once within 
the pale of taxation, and therefore necessarily 
of representation, -since the two were insepa- 
rable. And this consideration was the guide to 
our fathers. 

The Congress of the Confederation refused 
point blank to insert the word "white"' in the 
Articles of Confederation. The question came 
up 2-5th June, 1778, on these words: "The 
FFvEE ixHABiTAXTS of cach of thcsc States (pau- 
pers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice ex- 
cepted) shall be entitled to all privileges and 
immunities of free citizens in the several 
States." The delegates from South Carolina 
moved, in behalf of their State, to limit this 
guarantee to "free white inhabitants." On the 
question of inserting the word "white," eleven 
States voted ; two in favor of the insertion ; one 
was divided ; and eight were against it. South 
Carolina, not disheartened, made another at- 
tempt, by moving to add, after the words "the 
several States," the further clause, "according 
to the law of such States respectively for the gov- 
ernment of their own free WHiTE.inhabitants," 
thus seeking again to limit the operation of 
this guarantee. This proposition was also voted 
down by the same decisive majority of eight to 
three. And thus did our fathers testify to the 
right of representatioq without distinction of 



color. On other occasions, for successive years, 
they constantly gave the same testimony. 

By two different acts of the Confederation, 
one in April, 1783, and another in April, 1784, 
the war expenses were apportioned among the 
several States, according to "the number of 
white and other free citizens and inliabltants,^' 
thus positively embracing colored persons. In 
the Act for the temporary government of the 
territory " ceded or to be ceded" to the United 
States, dated April 23, 1784, and drawn by Jef- 
ferson, the voters are declared to be the " free 
males of fuUage," without distinction of color. 
In the famous Ordinance for the government of 
the Northwestern Territory, drawn by Nathan 
Dane, of Massachusetts, adopted by the Con- 
federation July 13, 1787, and then reenacted 
by our Congress, after the adoption of the Con- 
stitution, the voters are declared to be "free 
male inhabitants of full age" ^ — again without 
distinction of color. Then came successive acts 
of Congress for the government of Ten-itories, 
where the rule in the Ordinance for th& north- 
western Territories was followed, and there was 
no distinction of color. If this rule was changed, 
it was only when the partakers in the Revolu- 
tion and the authors of the Constitution bad 
ceased to exercise their influence over public 
affairs. The testimony of the Fathers was con- 
stant, and it is only of this that I speak on this 
occasion. 

Turning from the States collectively, and 
looking at them individually, we shall find the 
same testimony. By tlio^ Constitution of New 
Hampshire, at the time of the adoption of the 
National Constitution, the suffrage was vested 
in "every male inhabitant of each town and 
parish" with certain qualifications, but without 
any exclusion on account of color. By the Con- 
stitution of Massachusetts, the suffrage was 
vested in "every male person" with certain 
specified qualifications, but without distinction 
of color. Rhode Island, at the adoption of the 
Constitution, was under her original colonial 
charter, which provided for elections by "the 
major part of the freemen of the respective 
towns or places," without distinction of color. 
Connecticut was likewise under her original 
colonial charter, which required that the voters 
should have " maturity in years, quiet and 
peaceable behavior, a civil conversation and 
forty shillings freehold or forty pounds personal 
estate," without distinctiorf of color. By the 
Constitution of New York, the snliVa^c was 
vested in " every male inhabitant of full age," 
with certain specified qualilications, but with- 
out distinction of color. By ihc Constitution 
of New .Jersey it was vested in •• all inhabitants 
ofthis colony of fulhige," witli certain specified 
qualifications, but without distinction of color. 
By the Constitution of Pennsylvania it was 
vested in "every freeman of the full ago of 
twenty-one years," with certain specilied qual- 
ifications, but without distinction of color. By 



22 



fhe Declaration of Rights prefixed to the Con- 
stitution of Delaware, it was announced that 
"every freeman, having sufficient evidence of 
permanent common interest, with an attach- 
ment to the community, hath the right of suf- 
frage," without distinction of color. By the 
Constitution of Maryland the suffrage was 
vested in ''all freemen above twenty-one years 
of age," with certain specified qualifications, 
but without distinction of color. I3v the Dec- 
laration of Rights prefixed to the' Constitu- 
tion of Virginia it was announced that "all 
MEx having sufficient evidence of permanent 
common interest, with an attachment to the 
community, have the right of the suffrage," 
without distinction of color. And it is added 
that ' ' they cannot be taxed or deprived of their 
property for public use, withovt their men con- 
sent or that of their representatives so elected, 
nor bound by any law to which they have not 
in like manner assented for the public good." 
By the Constitution of North Carolina the suf- 
frage was vested in "all freemen of the age 
of twenty-one years," with certain specified 
qualifications, and without distinction of color ; 
and this rule continued down to 1835, when the 
Constitution was amended or rather, let me say 
perverted. That eminent citizen, Chief Justice 
Gaston, of North Carolina, in giving judgment 
at a later day, said: " It is a matter of univer- 
sal noioricAyihai free persons, loithout regard 
to color, claimed and exercised the franchise.^' 
(4 Dev. and Battle, Rep. 35. Tlie State r.";. 
Manual. ) By the Constitution of Georgia in 
1790 the suffrage waa vested in "citizens and in- 
habitants," with certain specified qualifications, 
but without distinction of color. To these States 
I may add Tennessee, which was carved out 
of North Carolina, and followed her benign ex- 
ampje. Her Constitution, which was adopted 
in 17'J6, vested the suffrage in " every freeman 
of twenty-one years," with certain qualifica- 
tions, but without distinction of color; and this 
rule continued down to the perversion of the 
Constitution in 1834. Mr. Cave Johnson, of 
Tennessee, once Postmaster General, is re- 
ported to have said thathe was originally elected 
to Congress ))y the votes of colored persons, 
and I have heard Mr. John Bell make the same 
confession with regard to himself. 

It only remains to speak of South Carolina, 
the early and constant marplot of republican 
institutions, where, by the Constitution, the suf- 
frage was vested "in every free while man, and 
no other person," with certain specified quali- 
ficalions.^ This was the only Stal(>, among the 
original Tliirtcen, unless (ieorgia be grouped 
with South Carolina, whicli at that time allowed :i 
discriniinalioii. founded on color, to liud a place 
in its Constitution. It was the only Stale which. 
afU'r uniting in a National Declaration, that 
"all men are created equal," openly and auda- 
ciously commenced the example t)f a"wbite 
man'sGovernment." Thisapostateidea, which 



hassince played such a part as a disturber of the 
national peace, was then and there born, as the 
opposite idea was born in Massachusetts, under 
the inspiring words of James Otis. And the 
other States, in their constitutions, followed this 
patriot Voice. They spoke of ' ' persons, " "in- 
habitants," "freemen," or better still "men," 
without any prefix of ' ' white. ' ' Color was not 
mentioned. But even in South Carolina, which 
introduced the discreditable tyranny into her 
Constitution, this exclusion was more apparent 
than real. In point of fact, even as late as 
1790, when the first census was taken, there 
were in this State only one thousand eight hun- 
dred and one free colored citizens. Of course 
their exclusion was wrong, mean, and unre- 
publican ; but I do not assert that it was on 
such^a scale as to justify the interference of 
the Nation to reform it, especially where the-e 
was no lapse of the State Government. On the 
other hand its sufferance cannot be interpreted 
into a waiver of the principles for which the 
Revolution was fought. 

Such are the public acts of the States collect- 
ively and individually at the time of the adop- 
tion of the National Constitution, illustrating 
with rare harmony the American idea of a Re- 
public, and testifying against any exclusion 
founded on color. Add to these that the Na- 
tional Constitution, which carefully excepts 
"Indians not taxed'' from the basis of repre- 
sentation, pays an open homage to the princi- 
ple that there can be no taxation without repre- 
sentation. Add then, that it expressly founds 
the Government upon "the people," not only 
in the preamble, which begins " we, the people," 
but also in providing that the House of Repre- 
sentatives shall be ' ' chosen by the people of the 
several States." Add also the crowning fiict, 
that it recognizes no distinction of color— that 
it treats all with the same impartial justice — 
and who are you, sir, who will dare to ibict into 
this Magna Carta an oligarchical idea which can 
find no sanction in its republican text? 

AMEIUCAX UEFIXITIOX OF A REPUBLICAX GOVERN- 
MEXT. 

And here T bring this part of the argument 
to a close. We have seen the origin of the con- 
troversy which led to the Revolution, when 
Otis, with such wise hardihood, insisted upon 
Equal Rights, and then giving practical effect 
to the lofty demand, sounded the battle-cry 
that "Taxation without Representation is Tyr- 
anny." We have followed this controversy ia 
its anxious stages, where these ]n-incip!es were 
constantly asserted and ron.stantly denied, until 
it broke forth in battle; we have seen these 
principles adopted as the very frontlet of the 
Ke]mbfic, when it assumed its place in the fam- 
ily of nations, and then again when it ordained 
itsConstitulion ; we have seen them avowed and 
illustrated in memorable words by the greatest 
authorities of the time; lastly, we have seen 
them embodied in public acts of the States col- 



23 



ledtively and individually ; and now, out of this 
concurring, cumulative, and unimpeachable 
testimony, constituting a speaking aggregation 
absohitely without precedent, I offer you the 
American definition of a Republican form of 
government. It is in vain that you cite phi- 
losophers or publicists, or the examples of for- 
mer history. Against these I put the early and 
constant postulates of the Fathers, the corpo- 
rate declarations of the Fathers, the avowed 
opinions of the Fathers, and the public acts of 
the Fathers, all with one voice proclaiming: 
first, that all men are Equal in rights ; and sec- 
ondly, that Governmentsderivetheirjustpowers 
from the consent of the governed ; and here is 
the American idea of a Republic, which must 
be adopted in the interpretation of the National 
Constitution. You cannot reject it. As well 
reject the decalogue in determining moral du- 
ties, or as well reject the multiplication table in 
determining a question of arithmetic. _ 

Counter to this irresistible conclusion there 
can be only one suggestion having any seeming 
plausibility, and this is founded on the conteru- 
porary recognition of slavery. On this point it 
is enough if I remind you, first, that our fathers 
did not recognize slavery as a permanent part 
of our system, but treated it as exceptional and 
transitory, while they concealed it from view 
by words which might mean something else ; 
secondly, that the slave was always regarded, 
legally and politically, as a part of the family 
of his master, according to the nomenclature of 
Blackstone's Commentaries, which were much 
read at the time, where master and servant were 
grouped with husband and wife, parent and 
child, and, as in the case of wife and child, the 
slave icas represented by the head of the famil)/, 
who also paid the taxes on his account, so that, 
in his case, the cardinal principle of the Revo- 
lution, associating representation and taxation 
together, was not in any respect violated ; and 
thirdly, that by the acts of the Continental 
Congress, and by all the State Constitutions, 
except that of South Carolina, all distinction 
of color was discarded in determining the elect- 
ive franchise, and that one of the authorized 
expounders of the National Constitution at the 
time Alexander Hamilton announced in the 
Federalist, as if anticipating the very question 
now before us, if the laws were to restore 

THE RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEX TAKEX AWAY, 
THE NEGROES COULD NO LONGER BE REFUSED AN 
EQUAL SHARE OF REPRESENTATION WITH OTHER 

INHABITANTS. Such was the undci-stiinding. 
and such was the promise at the adoption of 
the Constitution. Such was the declared mean- 
ing of oar fathers, according to the contempo- 
rary testimo.-:y of Alexander Hamilton. Thore- 
fore, while confessing sorrowiully their incon- 
sistency in recognizing slavery, and throwing 
over their shame the mantle which the son of 
Noah threw over his father, we must reject 
eveiy argument or inference on this account 



against the true idea of a Republic, which is 
none other than where all the citizens have an 
equalvoicein the Government. As Washington, 
by his august example, gave to mankind a new 
idea of political greatness, so did the Fathers, 
by their great e.xample, give to mankind a new 
idea of government. Do you ask again for 
authority? I offer it to you. It is an early 
Dictionary of James Otis, Samuel Adams, Pat- 
rick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin. It is in 
the Lexicon of the Revolution. It is in the 
Thesaurus of our national history. It is in the 
Collection of Public Acts. This new idea was 
the great discovery of our fathers. Rob them 
of this, and you take from them their highest 
title to gratitude. Columbus, venturing into an 
unknown sea, discovered a New World of space ; 
but our fathers, venturing likewise, discovered 
a New World of public duty. It is for us, their 
children, not to forget their discovery. 

RECENT FRENCH DEFINITIONS. 

After our own country, there is one other only 
which can help in determining what is a Repub- 
lican form of government, and this is France. 
There, as in the United States, a Republic has 
been declared. If in the former country it 
failed to be maintained ; still the generous ef- 
fort has been made, and we have its testimony. 
This is explicit. As the Provisional Govern- 
ment in 1848 proclaimed the Republic, it was 
careful, after proper deliberation to proclaim 
at the same time "universal suffrage," which 
Lamartine, standing on the steps of the Hotel 
de Ville, and speaking in the name of tlie gov- 
ernment, said was "the first truth and only 
basis of every National Republic." (Gamier 
Pag^s, Histoiredela Revolution., torn, i, p. 328.) 
The proclamation of the Republic M'as itself 
submitted to the vote of "all the citizens;" 
and on the terms of this submission another 
member of the Government, of solid sense and 
perfect fidelity, thus expresses himself: 

" ]5y these words — nil the citizem — tho PrDvisional 
(rovoinuicnt intended to consucrato definitively tho 
funilanuntal principle of democracy; jt intended to 
prochiiin openly and forever the iualienablo, impre- 
scriptiliU) ri,i,'ht, inherent in each member of society, 
to p;ivtici|Kito<lirectlyintho government of his coun- 
try: it intended to pjt in practice ctfcctuiiUy and 
loyally tho great principles until then shut up in the 
domainof tho abstract theories of philosophy." — Jl/ul, 
torn. V, p. 3-18, 

The same person, M. Garnier Pages, who was 
at once an eminent actor in these scenes and 
their most authentic historian, thus again dwells 
on the true idea of a Republic: 

" The Republic, that Rovernment of «/i' '»)/ nil where 
each has his place, hisduty. ami liisright; the llepub- 
lie, that is Liberty itself, the liberty to do every iu»t 
and to put forth every tlKuuhf not injurious to an- 
other: the llepublic, that fraternal ground whcroare 
admitted all parties, the representatives of the past 
as well as those of the future, where every intelli- 
gence, and every association can develop its author- 
ity."— //jiW, torn, vii, p. 407. 

To this authentic testimony of modern France, 
in harmony with our own country, I add tho 
definition of a very recent foreign publicist, 



24 



Nvho. after dwelling on Eqiu-ilityas the idol sen- 
timent of a Republic, says: 

"This shows us the nature and the end of repub- 
lican government. It is a Government founded on the 
general interests and eqnAYity."— Block, Dictionnaire 
ae la Fohtuiuc, article, Jiepublique. 

Admirable word.s ! in themselves a definition. 
And here, before closing this testimony, let me 
call attention to two authorities, contemporary 
-with our fethers, which stand apart, one Eng- 
lish and the other German. The first is that of 
Dr. Richard Price, the friend of John Adams, 
who very early appreciated the American Revo- 
lution, and vindicated it before the world. Here 
is his idea of good government, compendiouslv 
expressed : 

_ "Lesitimatcgovernment consists only in the domin- 
ion of L'ouitl Laws m^de with common consent, aud not 
in the dominion of any man over other men."— j. 
Adams's Woi-Jm, vol. iv, p. 401. 

The German was none other than that great 
thinker, Emanuel Kant,who, in his speculations 
on Perpetual Peace, says, that to this end every 
State should be a Republic, which he defines 
as follows : 

That form of government where every citizen par- 
ticipates by his representative in the exercise of the 
legislative power, and especially iu that of deciding 
on the (luestions of peace and war."— VF/iea<o», ll'is- 
tory of Law of Nations, p. 751. 

The statement of Kant is as simple as Pure 
Reason, which is the title of his great work. 
It claims plainly for ''every citizen" a share in 
the Government; and such is the definition fur- 
nished )jy this eminent philosopher, whose 
name, rarely quoted iu politics, is an unim- 
peachable authority. 

REBEL .STATES ARE XOT REPUBLICAN GOVEHN- 
MEXTS. 

Such Is the definition of a Republican form 
of government. It remains now that we should 
bring these lapsed States to this touchstone, and 
see their small title to recognition. Authentic 
figures are not wanting. The census of 18G0 
discloses the population of the States in ques- 
tion. Hero is the table : 



States. 


White pop- 
ulation. 


Colored popula- 
tion, slave and 
free, including 
Indians. 


Aiiib.ama 


626.271 
321.243 

77,747 
591,550 

;i.33.901 
029,912 
2<H.300 
826,722 
420,K!il 
1.017,299 


430,930 
111,307 
02,677 
465,736 
350.546 
437.404 
362,080 
412,403 
283,079 
183,324 
549,019 


Arkansas 


Florida 

Geor^'ia 

Louisiana 

Mi.ssi.-sippi 

North Carolina 

South Carolina 

Tenne.ssee 

Texas 


Virginia 






6.447,222 | 3,066,110 



A glance at (his table is enough. Taking the 
sum total of tlic population in the eleven States, 
we find G,447,2li2 whites to a,GOG,110 colored 



persons ; and you are now to decide, whether 
in the discharge of your duties under the Con- 
stitution, and bound to guaranty 'a Republican 
form of government, you will disfranchise this 
mighty mass, shutting them out from those 
EqualRights promised by our fathers, and from 
all voice in the government of their country. 
They surpass In numbers, by at least a million, 
the whole population of the colonies at the time 
our fathers raised the cry, "Taxation without 
Representation is Tyranny;" aud noWyou are 
to decide whether you will strip them of rep- 
resentation while you subject them to a grind- 
ing taxation by tariff and excise, acting directly 
aud Indirectly, which dwarfs into insignificance 
everything attempted by the British Parliament. 
Our fathers could not bear a stamp act, iu the 
making of which they had no voice, and they 
went forth to battle with the most formidable 
Power of the globe,.rathor than pay a tax of 
threepence on tea imposed by a Parliament 
in which they were not represented. Are you 
ready, sir, in disregard of this great pvecedent, 
and in disregard also of all the promises and 
examples of our past history, to thrust a single 
citizen out of all representation In the Govern- 
ment, while you consume his substance with 
taxation, subject him to stamp acts, compel him 
to pay a duty of twenty-five cents a pound on 
tea, and then follow him with your Imposts in 
all thobusiness of life ? Clearly if you do not 
recognize his title to representation, you must 
at least by careful legislation relieve "him from 
this intolerable taxation. Some of these mil- 
lions, whom you thrust out, already contribute 
largely to the public revenue. How. then, can 
you deny them representation ? Their money 
is not rejected. Why reject their votes? But 
if you reject their votes, you cannot take their 
money. As you can detect no color In their 
money, you ought to detect no color in their 
votes. 

If looking at these States together the duty 
of Congress seems clear, it becomes clearer 
even when we look at them separately. Begin 
with Tennessee, which disfranchises 283,079 
citizens, being more than a quarter of Its whole 
"people." Thus violating a dislinctlve prin- 
ciple of republican government, how can this 
State be recognized as republican ? This ques- 
tion is easier asked than answered. But Ten- 
nessee is the least ofienslve on the list. There 
is Virginia, which disl'rancliises54'J,011> citizens, 
being more than alhirdof its whole "people." 
There is Alabama, which disfranchises lotj, 030 
citizens, being nearly one half of its whole 
"people." 'J'here Is Louisiana, which disfran- 
chises 3.30,54i; citizens, being one half of its 
whole " people." There is Missi.ssii)iii, which 
disfranchises 437, 40-1 citizens, being much more 
than one half of its whole "peoph'." And 
there is South Carolina, wliicli disfranchises 
412.408 eitizens, being nearly two iliirds of Its 
whole "peoi)le." A Republic Is a ijyramld 



25 



standing on the broad mass of the people as a 
base ; but here is a pyramid balanced on its 
point. To call such a government "repub- 
lican" is a mockery of sense and decency. A 
monarch, "surrounded by republican institu- 
tions.'' whicli at one time was the boast of 
France, vrould be less offensive to correct prin- 
ciples, and give more security to Human 
Righrs. 

It is not difficult to classify these States. 
They are axistocracies or oligarchies. An ar- 
istocracy, according to the etymology of the 
word, is the government of the best. An oli- 
garchy is the government of the few, and is not 
even an aristocracy, but an abuse of aristocracy, 
as despotism is the abuse of monarchy. Per- 
haps these States may be characterized in either 
way ; and yet the term aristocracy, especially 
in its origin, has something respectable which 
cannot be attributed to a combination, whose 
single distinctive element is the color of the 
skin. 

The eminent publicist, Bodin, in his defini- 
tion of an aristocracy, says that it exists tchere 
a smalhr bodi/ of citizens governs the greater, 
and this definition has been adopted by others, 
especially by Montesquieu. But this is not sat- 
isfactory". Hallam, whose judgment is of the 
highest value, after discussing the merits of this 
definition, proposes the following most sug- 
gestive substitute: 

"We misht better say, th<at the distinguishing char- 
acteristic of an aristocracy is the enjoyment of priyi- 
lesc>^ which are not commnnicrtble to other citizen>i sim- 
ply bu rin;/lhinfi they can thenifielves do to obtain them." 
— Hu/lam's Literature of Europe, vol. ii, cap. 4, sec. 52. 
These words completely characterize the aris- 
tocracy of aolor ; for such an aristocracy_ is 
plainly in the enjoyment of privileges, which 
are not communicable to other citizens, by any- 
thing they can themselves do to obtain them. 
To show that our rebel States are aristocra- 
cies or oligarchies is enough for the present 
occasion. But we must not forget that, born 
of Slavery, they have the spirit of that iniquity, 
so that they are essentially of a low type. 
Founded on the color of the skin, tlicy are, 
beyond all question, the most senseless and dis- 
g-usting of all history. Would j'ou know to what 
they might incline? Listen to the frank words 
of the greatest Venetian writer, the famous 
Father Paul, while he counsels the privileged 
class, in a state refined by art and elevated by 
glory, how to use their powers. " If a noble, " ' 
says' he, "injure a plebeian, justify him by all 
possible means ; but should that be found quite 
impossible, punish more in appearance than in 
reality. If a plebeian insult a noble, punish him 
with the greatest severity, that the commonalty 
may know how perilous it is to insult a noble." 
(Sarpi, Opinione per il perpetno Dominio di 
Vemzia, p. 13.) Such is the terrible rule laid 
dov.n in a document, which taught how to make 
the puwer of Venice perpetual. But this same 
spirit predominates still in the rebel Stales. It 



rages there with more revolting cruelty than it 
ever raged in Venice. And such is the govern- 
ment which now claims recognition as " rci»ub- 
lican." 

The pretension thus organized is hateful on 
another ground. It is nothing less than a Caste, 
which is at once irreligious and unrepublican. 
A Caste cannot exist except in defiance of the 
first principles of Christianity and the first prin- 
ciples of a llepublic. It is Heathenism in reli- 
gion and tyranny in government. The Brali rains 
and the Sudras in India, from generation to 
generation, have been separated, as the two 
races are now separated in these States. If a 
Sudra presumed to sit on a Brahmin's carpet 
he was punished with banishment. But our 
recent rebels undertake to play the part of 
Bramhins, and exclude citizens, with better title 
than themselves, i'rom essential rights, simply 
on the ground of Caste, which, according to its 
Portuguese origin, casta, is only another term 
for race. 

But this pretension is in yet other respects 
hostile to good government. It is essentially 
a Monojioly in a couniiy which sets its face 
against all monopolies as unequal and immoral. 
If any monopoly deserves unhesitating judg- 
ment it must be that which absorbs the rights 
of others and engrosses political power. How 
vain it is to condeuin the petty monopolies of 
commerce and then allow this vast, all-embra- 
cing monopoly of Human Plights. 

Clearly, most clearly, and beyond all ques- 
tion, such a government cannot be considered 
"republican in form." Call it an Oligarchy, 
call it an Aristocracy, call it a Caste, call it a 
Monopoly; but do not call it a Republic. 

DUTY OF COXGRESS. 

Of course 'such a government can exist only 
in defiance of the Constitution, and it is the 
duty of Congress to interfere against it. Pres- 
ident Johnson, in his annual message, says: 

"In case of the usurpation of the irovernmont of a 
State bv one man or an Oiignrchy,\\ becomes thoduty 
of the United States to make good the guarautcc to 
that State of a Republican form of govern^ucnt." 

The President forgets to mention an Aristoc- 
racy, and does not add, what is true, that the 
authority which must make good the guaran- 
tee is the sole judge of the exigency. To this 
end everything centers in Congress whose pow- 
ers are commensurate with the occasion. In 
aid of the "guarantee" clause are those other 
words in the Constitution, providing that Con- 
gress "shall have power to make all laws 
which shall be necessary and proper for carry- 
ing into execution the powers vested in the 
Government of the United States." Under 
this ample provision there is a duty to W per- 
formed, by any means which may soi in l)est. 
The jurisdiction is complolc and it H_in Con- 
gress'. If any authority i'or this proposition were 
needed it would be found in the words of Chief 



26 



Justice Taney, speaking for the Supreme Court 
of the United States: 

" The fourth scotion of the fourth article of the Con- 
stitution of the United States provides that the Uni- 
ted States shall guaranty to every State in the Union 
a republican form of government, and shall protect 
each of them against invasion; and, on the applica- 
tion of the Legislature or of the Executive (when the 
Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic 
violence. 

"Under this article of the Constitution, it rests with 
Congress to dec ide tvhat government is th e establish ed- one 
Ml a State. For, as the Uiiited States guaraiity to each 
State a Republican government. Congress must neees- 
aarily decide ichat government is established in the 
State before it can determine whether it is Republican 
ornot."—7 Howard Rep. 42, Luther vs. Borden. 

In the exercise of this power two courses at 
least are open. One is to impose an irrepealable 
condition upon the unrepublican States, requir- 
ing them, before recognition, to reform their 
governments to the satisfaction of Congress. 
The other,_and more direct course, is by Act of 
Congress, in performance of the "guarantee," 
and according to the plenary authority "for car- 
rying into execution the powers vested in the 
GoYerument of the United States," to provide 
all needful safeguards in the unrepublican 
States, and especially t» place the Equal Rights 
of All undor the guardianship of National Law. 

Against the exercise of this power there are 
btft two arguments. First, that the Constitu- 
tion, by providing that "the electors in each 
State shall have the qualifications requisite for 
electors of the most numerous branch of the 
State Legislature," lias reserved to each State 
tJie power of excluding citizens merely on ac- 
count of color, even though constituting more 
than a majority of the population. The other 
argument is that, since certain States at the 
North have disfranchised the few colored per- 
sons within their borders, the United States 
are so far constrained by this examjile that they 
cannot protect the millions of freedmen in the 
rebel States from disfranchisement, and cannot 
save the Republic from the peril of such a crying 
injustice. I know not which of these two argu- 
ments is tlie least reasonable, or ratlier, which 
is the most reprehensible. They are Ijoth un- 
reasonable and 1)oth reprehensible. They looth 
do violence to the true principles of the Con- 
stitution, if not to common sense. 

It is true that, according to the text of the 
Constitution, each State may determine the 
"qualifications" of electors, but this can have 
no application to an exigency like the present, 
where, at the close of a nrolonged and desper- 
ate rebellion, the United States are obliged to 
guaranty to certain States a republican form 
of government. In the performance of this 
"guarantee," the United States can look only 
rA the essential elements of such a government ; 
nor more nor less ; without regard to State 
laws. J5iit I am not willing to rest the argu- 
ment hen>. Kvon assumingtliatthere has been 
no lapse of State governments, so as to bring 
the "guarantee" into operation— assuming that 



we are in a condition of assured peace — then I 
utterly deny that the power to determine the 
" qualifications' ' of electors can give any power 
to disfranchise actual citizens. It is "qualifi- 
cations" only which the States can determine, 
meaning, by this limited term, those require- 
ments of personal condition which are regarded 
as essential to the security of the franchise. 
These ".qualifications" cannot be in their na- 
ture permanent or insurmountable. Color can- 
not be a "qualification," any more than size or 
the quality of the hair. A permanent or insur- 
mountable "qualification" is equivalent to a 
deprivation of the suffrage — in other words, it 
is the tyranny of taxation without representa- 
tionj and this tyranny, I insist, is Rot intrusted 
to any State of this Union. This is the very 
ground taken by Mr. Madison, when, defend- 
ing the National Constitution in the Virginia 
convention, he said : 

"Some States might regulate the elections on the 
principle ol Equality, and others might regulate them 
otherwise." « * * * "Should the people of 
any State, by any means, be deprived of the right of 
suffrage, it was judged proper that it shouldbe remedied 
by the General Government." * * s= * "If the 
elections be regulated properly bvthe State Legisla- 
tures, the congressional control will very probably 
never be exercised. This power ai.pears to be satis- 
factory and unliJ<cly to be abused as any part of the 
Constitntion."— Elliot's Debates, vol. iii, p. 347. 

With these decisive words from one of the 
chief framers of the Constitution, backed by 
the reason of the case, I dismiss this objection 
to the little consideration it deserves. And I 
dismiss to the same indifference that other ob- 
jection, that our hands are tied because certain 
Northern States have done a wrong and mean 
thing. Pray, sir, how can the failure of these 
States affect the power of Congress in a sreat 
exigency under the Constitution of the United 
States? But duty on the present occasion is 
identical with power. No matter if this power 
has been long dormant, it is none the less vital. 
It is like that slumbering statute, which Cicero 
describes as a sword in the scabbard, tanquam 
gladiiis in vagina. It only remains that it 
should be drawn forth. 

_ This duty has been fortified by the Constitu- 
tional Amendment, which, after providing for 
the abolition of slavery, empowers Congress to 
"enforce" it by "appropriate legislation," thus 
heaping Ossa upon Pelion. Clearly under these 
words Congress may do what, in its discretion, 
seems "appropriate" to this end, and there i.s 
no power to call its action in question. On this 
point, the authority of the Supreme Court, in 
the masterly judgment of Chief Justice Mar- 
shall, is most explicit: 

"The government, which ha^ a right to do an act 
and has imposed on it the duty of performing that net 
must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed 
to select t he means, and those who conteiKl that it may 
not select any appronriutr means, that one liarticular 
mode of eflecting the object is excepted, take upon 
tliemselves the burden of establishing that cxcen- 

''"','•" 1 . *. 1, * •.,*• ..* "^"^ ."'," ''"^' ^^ 'cfT'ti- 
matc, let it bo within the scope ol the Constitution, 



27 



andaZ?mean«which are appropriate, which arc plainly 
adapted to that end, whicli are not prohibited, but con- 
sist with the letter and spirit ot the Constitution aro 
Constitutional.--4 Wheaton li. m-i21-McOullouah 
vs. JBunk of Maryland. 

These words of the Chief Justice are reenforced 
by a kindred declaration from another great 
authority, Mr. Justice Story, speaking also for 
the Supreme Court, on an important occasion: 
"The Constitution unavoidably dealt in frcneral 
laneuaee It was not intended merely to provide lor 
the exigencies of a few years, but was to. endure 
through alonslapseofafres; theeventsot which were 
locked up in the inscrutable purposes of Frovu eiice. 
Hence the Constitution leaves it to the legislative 
power from time to time, to adopt its own means to 
effectuate legitimate objects."— 1 Wheaton.2i.325; Mar- 
tinis. Hunter. 

Apply these words to the present question, 
and the concUision is irresistible. Whatever 
legislation shall seem to Congress "appropri- 
ate" to "enforce" the abolition of slavery; 
whatever "means" shall seem "proper to 
this end. must be within the powers ot Congress 
under the Constitutional Amendment, lou 
cannot deny this principle without setting aside 
those most remarkable judgments which stand 
as landmarks of constitutional history. But 
who can doubt that the abolition of the whole 
Black Code, in all its oligarchical pretensions, 
civil and political, is "appropriate" to "en- 
force' ' the abolition of Slavery ? Mark, it you 
please, the language of this grant. Congress 
may "enforce" abolition, and nobody can ques- 
tion the "means" which it thinks best to em- 
ploy. Let it not hesitate to adopt the "means" 
which promise to be the most effective. As 
the occasion is extraordinary, so the ' ' means 
emploved must be extraordinary. 

But" the Senate has already by solemn vote 
asserted this very jurisdiction. You have, sir, 
decreed that colored persons shall enjoy the 
same civil rights as white persons; in other 
wov(h. that, with regard to civil rights, there 
shall be no OUgarchy, Aristocracy, Caste, or 
Monopoly, but that a}^ shall be equal betore 
the law without distinction of color. And this 
great decree you have made as "appropriate 
legislation" under the Constitutional Amend- 
ment "to enforce" the abolition of slavery. 
Surely you have not erred in this act. Beyond 
all question the protection of colored persons 
in civil rights is essential to complete the abo- 
lition of slavery ; but the protection of colored 
persons in political rights is not less essential; 
and the power is as ample in one case as in the 
other. In each you legislate for the main- 
tenance of colored persons in that Liberty which 
has been so tardily accorded, and the legislation 
is iust as "appropriate" in one case as in the 
other. The protection of colored persons in 
their civil rights by Act of Congress will be a 
great event. It will be great in itself, it will 
be greater still, because it establishes the power 
of Congress, without any further amendment of 
the Constitution, to protect colored persons in 



all their rights, including of course the elective 
franchise. There are precedents of Congress, 
as well as of courts, which are landmarks; and 
this is one of them. 

Therefore, as authority for Congress you have 
two sources in the Constitution itself, first, the 
guarantee clause, and, secondly, the Constitu- 
tional Amendment; each sufficient— the two 
together a twofold sufficiency. To estafelish the 
Equal Rights of All, no further amendment is 
needed. The actual text is exuberant. Instead 
of adding new words, it will be enough if you 
give to those which exist the natural force which 
belongs to them. Instead of neglecting them, 
use them. Instead of supplementing them, in- 
terpret them. An illustrious magistrate once 
retorted upon an advocate, who, dissatisfied 
with a ruling of the court, threatened to burn 
his books, "You had better read them;" 
and so would I say now to all who think the 
Constitution needs amendment, you had better 
read it. Yes, sir, read it in the principles pro- 
claimed by the Fathers before the Revolution ; 
read it in the declarations of the Fathers when 
they took their place as a .Republic ; read it in 
the avowed opinions of the Fathers ; read it in 
the Public Acts of the Fathers ; and in all this 
beaming light you will discern its true meaning. 
Then again read it in that other light which, 
as from" another sun, newly risen at mid-day, 
streams from the obligation of Congress to 
' ' enforce' ' the abolition of slavery. And then 
asiain read it in the glowing illumination of the 
wlir. But, in whichever light you read it, you 
will find always the same irresistible meaning. 
Even if the text were doubtful, the war makes 
it clear. The victory which overthrew slavery 
has carried with it all those glosses and con- 
structions by which this wrong was originally 
fastened upon the Constitution. For generations 
the Constitution has been interpreted for Sla- 
very. From this time forward it must be in- 
terpreted, in harmony with the Declaration of 
Independence, so that Human Rights shall al- 
ways prevail. The promises of the Fathers must 
be sacredly fulfilled. This is the commanding 
rule, superseding all other rules. This is one 
of the great victories of the war— perhapsthe 
greatest. It is nothing less than the Emancipa- 
tion of the Constitution itself. 



THK BALLOT, THE ONLY SUFFICIENT Gr.4.U.\.NTEE. 

Mr. President, such is the testimony of his- 
tory, authority, and Constitution, which binds 
the judgment on this occasion, leaving no al- 
ternative. Thus far, I have done liltle but 
bring the diversified testimony together and 
weave it into one body. It is not I who speak. 
I am nothing. It is the cause, whose voice I 
am, which speaks to you. But there an- yet 
other things which, even at this late hour, crave 
to be said. And here, after this long review, 
I am brought back to more general considera- 
tions, and end as I began, by showing the ue- 



28 



cessity of Enfranchisement for the sake of pub- 
lic Security and Public Faith. I plead now for 
the ballot, as the Great Guarantee ; and the only 
Sufficient Guarantee — being in itself peace- 
maker, reconciler, schoolmaster, and protector 
— to which we are bound by every necessity and 
every reason ; and I speak also for the good of 
the States lately in rebellion, as well as for the 
glory an^ safety of the Republic, that it may be 
an example to mankind. 

Let me be understood. What I especially 
ask is impartial suffrage, which is, of course, 
embraced in universal suffrage. What is uni- 
versal is necessai'ily impartial. For the pres- 
ent, I simply insist that all shall be equal 
before the law, so that, in the enjoyment of 
this right, there shall be no restriction which 
is not equally applicable to all. Any further 
question, in the nature of "qualification," 
belongs to another stage of the debate. And 
yet I have no hesitation in saying that uni- 
versal suffrage is a universal right, subject only 
to such regulations as the safety of ^ciety 
may require. These may concern (1) age, (2) 
character, (3) registration, (4) residence. N^o- 
body doubts that minors maybe excluded, and 
so, also, persons of infamous life. Registra- 
tion and residence are both prudential re- 
quirements for the safeguard of the ballot-box 
against the Nomads and Bohemians of politics, 
and to compel the exercise of this franchise 
■where a person is known among his neighbors 
and friends. Education also, may, under cer- 
tain circumstances, be a requirement of pru- 
dence, especially valuable in a Republic, where 
so much depends on the intelligence of the peo- 
ple. These temporary restrictions do not in any 
way interfere with the right of suffrage, for they 
leave it absoluteli/ accessible to all. Even if im- 
pediments, they are such as may be easily over- 
come. At all events, thc}' are not in any sense 
insurmountable, and this is the essential re- 
quirement of republican institutions. No mat- 
ter under what depression of poverty, in what 
depth of obscurity, or with what diversity of 
complexion you have been born, you are, nev- 
ertheless, a citizen — the peer of every oilier cit- 
izen, and the ballot is your inalienable right. 

'I'lie ballot is peacemalcer, and, are we not 
told. Blessed are the peacemakers? High 
among the Beatitudes let it be placed, for there- 
it belongs. Deny it, and the freedman will be 
the victim of a perpetual warfare. In ceasing 
to be a slave he only l)ccoraes a sacrifice. 
Grant it, and he is admitted to those Equal 
Rights wliicli allow no sacrifice. Plutarch 
records that the wise man of Alliens charmed 
the people by saying that Eqiialitij causes no 
War, and "bolh the rich and poor repeated 
it." And so master and slave will yet enjoy 
the transforming power of this principle'. The 
iimster will recognize the new citizen. The 
slave will staiid with tranquil self-respect in 
the presence of the master. Brule force dis- I 



appears. Distrust is at an end. The master 
is no longer a tyrant. The freedmen is no 
longer a dependent. The ballot comes to him 
in his depression, and says, " Use me and be 
elevated." It cbmes to him in his passion, 
and says, "Use me and do not lieht." It 
comes to him in his daily thoughts, filling him 
with the strength and glory of manhood. 

The ballot is reconciler. Next after peace 
is reconciliation. But reconciliation is more 
than peace. It is concord. Parties that have 
been estranged are brought into harmony. 
They learn to live together. They learn to 
work together. They are kind to each other, 
even if it be only as the Arab and his horse ; 
and this mutual kindness is a mutual advantage. 
Unquestionably, the ballot promotes this great 
boon, because it brings all into natural reL.tions 
of justice, without which reconciliation is a 
vain thing. Do you wish to see harmony truly 
prevail, so that industry, society, government, 
civilization, may all prosper, and the Republic 
may wear a crown of true greatness? Then 
do not neglect the ballot. 

The ballot is schoohnaster. Reading and 
writing are of inestimable value, but the ballot 
teaches what these cannot teach. It teaches 
manhood. Especially is it important to a race 
whose manhood has been denied. The work 
of redemption cannot be complete if the ballot 
is left in doubt. The freedman already knows 
his friends by the unerring instinct of the iieart. 
Give him the ballot, and he will be educated 
into the princij)lcs of government. Deny him 
the ballot, and he will continue an alien in 
knowledge as in rights. His claim is excep- 
tional, as your injustice is exceptional. For 
generations you have shut him out from all 
education, making it a crime to teach him to 
read for himself the Book of Life. Let not 
the tyrann} of the past be an apology for any 
further exclusion. Prisoners for a long time 
immured in dungeons are sometimes blinded 
as they come forth into the light of day ; but 
this is no reason for continued imprisonment. 
To every freedman the ballot is the light of 
day. 

The ballot is protector. Perhaps, at the 
present moment, this is its highest function. 
Slavery has ceased in name ; but this is all. The 
old masters still assert an inhuman power, and 
now by positive statutes seek to bind the freed- 
man in new chains. Let this conspiracy pro- 
ceed unchecked, and the freedman Avill be more 
nnhaiipy than the early Puritan, who, s"('king 
liberty of conscience, escaped iVomtiie "lords 
bishops" only to fall under the " tords elders." 
"J'hc master will still be master under another 
name, as according to Milton, 

" New presbyter is but old priest writ larsc." 
Serfdom or apprenticeship is slavery in an- 
other guise. To save the freedman from this 
tyranny, with all its accumulated oiitrage, is 



29 



your solemn duty. For this we are now devi- 
sing guarantees ; but, believe mc, the only suf- 
ficient guarantee is the ballot. Let the lieed- 
man vote, and he will have inhinisclf under the 
law a constant, ever-present, sell-protecting 
power. The armor of citizenship will be his best 
security. The ballot will be to him sword and 
buckler — a sword with which to pierce his ene- 
mies, and a buckler on which to receive tlieir 
assault. Its possession alone will be a terror 
and a defense. The law, which is the highest 
reason, boasts that every man's house is his 
castle ; but the freedman can have no castle 
without the ballot. When the master kno vvs that 
he may be voted down, he will know that he 
must be iust, and everything is contained in 
justice. The ballot is like charity, which never 
faileth, and without which man is only as sound- 
ing brass or a tinkling cymbal. The ballot is 
the one thing needful, wUhout which rights of 
testimony and all other rights will be no better 
than cobwebs which the master will break 
through with impunity. To him who has the 
ballot all other things shall be given— protec- 
tion, opportunity, education, a homestead. The 
ballot is like the Horn of Abundance, out ol 
which overflow rights of every kind, with corn, 
cotton, rice, and all the fruits of the earth. _ Or 
better still, it is like the hand of the body, with- 
out which man, who is now only a little lower 
than the angels, musthave continued only alittle 
above the brutes. We are fearfully and won- 
derfully made ; but as is the hand in the work 
of civilization, so is the ballot in the work of 
government. "Give me the ballot and I can 
move the world," may be the exclamation of 
the race still despoiled of this right. There is 
nothing which it cannot open with almost fab- 
ulous power, like that golden mistletoe, offshoot 
of the sturdy oak, which, in the hands of the 
classical adventurer, unclosed the regions of an- 
other Avorld, and like that golden bough, it is 
renewed as it is used: 
" One plucked away, a second branch you see 
Shoot forth in gold and glitter from the tree. 
If I press these illustrations, it is only that I 
may bring home to your minds that supreme 
efficacy, which cannot be exaggerated. Though 
simple in character, there is nothing the ballot 
.cannot accomplish; like that homely house- 
hold lamp in Arabian story, which, at the call 
of its possessor, evoked a spirit, who did all 
things, from the building of a palace to the rock- 
ing of a cradle, and filled the air with an invis- 
ible presence. But it is as protector that it 
is of immeasurable power— like a fifteen-inch 
Columbiad pointed from a Monitor. Ay, sir, 
the ballot is the Columbiad of our political life, 
and every citizen who has it is a full-armed 
Monitor. 

Hav-ing pleaded for the freedman, I now 
plead for the Republic ; for to each alike the 
ballot is a neccsaiUj. It is idle to expect^ any- 
true peace while the freedman is robbed of this 



transcendent right and left a prey to thatycPige- 
ance which is ready to wreak upon him the 
disappointment of defeat. The country, sym- 
pathetic with him, will be in a condition of per- 
petual unrest. With him it will sufferaud with 
him alone can it cease to suffer. Only through 
him can you redress the balance of our politi- 
cal system and assure tlie safety of patriot cit- 
izens. Only through him can you save the 
national debt from the inevitable repudiation 
which awaits it when recent rebel9»in conjunc- 
tion with Northern allies once more bear sway. 
H'; is our^est guarantee. Use him. He was 
i once your fellow-soldier ; he has always been 
I your fellow-man. If he was willing to die for 
the Republic he is surely good enough to vote. 
And now that he is ready to uphold the Repub- 
lic, it will be madness to reject him. Had he 
voted originally, the acts of secession must have 
failed. Treason would have been voted down. 
You owe this tragical war and the debt now 
fastened upon the country to the denial of this 
right. Vacant chairs in once happy homes, in- 
numerable gvaves, saddened hearts, mothers, 
fathers, wives, sisters, brothers, all mourning 
lost ones, the poor now ground by a taxation 
they had never known before, all testily against 
that injustice l)y which the present freedman 
was not allowed to vote. Had he voted there 
would have been peace. If he votes now there 
will be peace. Without this you must have a 
standing army, which is a sorry substitute for 
justice. Before you is the plain alternative of 
the ballot-box or the cartridge box ; choose ye 
betv/een them. 

Reason too in every way and with every voice 
cries out in unison with necessity. All poli- 
cies, all expediencies, all economies take up 
the cry. Nothing so impolitic as wrong ; noth- 
ing so inexpedient as tyranny ; nothing so bttle 
economical as the spirit of Caste. Justice is 
the highest policy, the truest expediency, and 
the most comprehensive economy. In this in- 
spiration act. Do you wish to save the national 
credit, now imperiled by fatal injustice, and 
especially to secure gold as the national cur- 
rency? Then do not let the question of Equal 
Rights disturb the country with its volcanic 
throes. Yon complain that labor is unorgan- 
ized and that the cotton crop has failed. Do 
you wish labor to smile and cotton to grow ? 
Then sow the land vs-ith Human Rights and en- 
circle it round about with justice. The freed- 
man will not, cannot work, while you deny his 
rights. Cotton will not, cannot grow in such 
an atmosphere. It is absurd to expect it._ In 
using the freedman as you now do you imitate 
those barbarous Irish wlio insisted upon plow- 
ing by the horse's tail, until an Act of Par- 
banient intcrfere'I '-0 require plowing by har- 
ness. Tlie inlinite folly must be corrected 
anion"- us, if for no higlier reason than because 
it is unprofitable. But it is contrary to nature, 
and on this account renders the whole social 



30 



system insecure. Where Human Rights are set 
at naught there can be no tranquillity except 
fliat of force, which is despotism. This most 
reasonable conclusion is sustained by the phi- 
losophy of history, which, speaking "by one of 
its oracles, the great Italian Vico tells us most 
sententiously that "nothing out of its natural 
state can either easily subsist or last long." 
Iruer words were never uttered as a statement 
of philosophy or as a warning to injustice en- 
acted into law. 

GOOD AXD GLORY OF THE REPUBLIC. 

_ Mr. President, already I have taken too much 
time, and still the great theme, in its various 
and multitudinous relations, continues to open 
before us. At each step it rises in some new 
aspect— assuming every shape of interest and 
ot duty— -now with voice of command and then 
with voice of persuasion. The national se- 
curity, the national faith, the good of the freed- 
man, the concerns of business, agriculture, jus- 
tice, peace, reconciliation, obedience to God- 
such are some of the forms it takes. In the 
name of all these, I speak to-day, hoping to do 
something for my country, and especially for 
that unhappy portion which has been arrayed in 
arms against us. The people there are my fel- 
low-citizens, and gladly would I hail them, if 
they would permit it, as no longer a " section," 
no longer ''the South," but an integral part 
of the Republic— under a Constitution which 
knows no North and no South and cannot tol- 
ei-ate any "sectional" pretensions. Gladly do 
I offer my best efforts in all sincerity for their 
welfare. But I see clearly that there is noth- 
ing in the compass of mortal power so impor- 
tant to them in every respect, morally, politi- 
cally, and economically— that there is nothing 
with such certain promise to them of beneficent 
results— that there is nothing so sure to make 
their land smile with industry and fertility as 
the decree of Equal liights which I now invoke. 
Let the decree go forth to cover them with bless- 
ings, sure to descend upon their children in 
successive generations. They have given us 
war; we give them peace. They have raged 
against us in the name of Slavery. Wo send 
them back the benediction of Justice for all. 
They menace hate ; we offer in return all the 
sacred charities of country together with ob- 
livion of the past. This is our " Measure for 
Measure." 1 his is our retaliation. This is our 
only revenge. 

AH the omens are with the Republic which 
must yet win its sublimest triumphs. 'J'iniid or 
perverse counsels may postpone the gladsome 
consummation ; but the contest now begun can 
end only when slavery is completely trans- 
formed by a metamorphosis, which shall sub- 
stitute Justice for Jnjuslice, Riches for Poverty, 
and Rcauty for Deformity. J'^rom history wo 
learn, not only tin; Past, but the Future. Jiy 
the study of what has been we know what must 



be, according to unerring law. Call it, if yoa 
please, the logic of events, and infer the inev- 
itable conclu.sion. Or call it, if you please, the 
Rule of Three, and from the results of certain 
forces determine the proportionate results of 
increased forces. There can be no mistake in 
the answer. And so it is plain that the Equal 
i;ights of All will be established. Amid all 
seeming vicissitudes the work goes on. Soon 
or late the final vietory will be won. I believe 
soon. Speeches cannot stop it; crafty machin- 
ations cannot change it. Against its irresisti- 
ble movement politicians are as impotent as 
those old conjurors, who imagined that, 
'•By rhymes they could pull down full soon, 
i"rom lofty sky the wading moou." 

These verses, which shine on the black-letter 
page of the great lawyer, Sir Edward Coke, 
aptly describe the incantations of our day to 
pull down Justice from her lofty sky. It can- 
not be done. In this conviction I can observe 
\yhat comes to pass without losing faith. I can 
listen with composure to arguments which ought 
not to be made, and I can see with equal coln- 
posure how individual opinions swing between 
Congress and the President. It is not to the 
oscillations of the pendulum that we look for 
the measure of time, but to the face of the pub- 
lic clock and the striking of the church bell. 
The indications of that clock and the striking 
ot that bell leave no room for doubt. 

In the fearful tragedy now drawing to a close 
there is a destiny, stern and irresistible as that 
ot the Greek Drama, which seems to master 
all that IS done, hurrying on the death of Sla- 
very and Its whole brood of sin. There is also 
a Christian Providence which watches this bat- 
tle for ri,2:ht, caring especially for the poor and 
downtrodden who have no helper. The freed- 
man still writhing under cruel oppression now 
lifts his voice to Go(l the avenger. It is for ns 
to save ourselves from righteous judgment, 
^ever with impunity can you outrage human 
nature. Our country, which is guilty still, it; 
paying still the grievous penalty. Therefore 
by every motive of self-preservation we are 
summoned to be just. And thus is the cause 
associated mdissolubly with the national life. 

Rut 111 saving the Republic we elevate it. In 
overthrowing an oppressive injustice we give full 

SCOl" '"''-■•' 



l^^]]': *" ""^ pnnciples of our government and 
tulfili that " Idea of a perfect Commonwealth," 
which has entered into the visions of philoso- 
phy and poetry. " I am all that has been, that 
IS, and that shall be, and none among mortals 
has hitherto lifted my veil;" such was the 
enigma cut on the pavement of the temple of 
Minerva. For ages it remained unanswered: 
but the answer is now at hand. 'The Republic 
is all that has been, that is, and that shall be; 
and It IS your duty to lift the veil. To do less 
than this were a failure, for such was the aspi- 
ration and promise of the Fathers when they as- 
sumed their first vows in the family of nations. 



31 



To do this will fix the example of American 
Institutions. So long as slavery endured, it 
■was impossible ; so long as a Black Code, the 
wretched counterpart of slavery, endures in 
any form, it is impossible. To attain this idea 
we must proclaim the rule of Justice. Slavery 
thus far has been the very pivot, round which 
the Republic has revolved, while all its policy 
at home and abroad has radiated from this ter- 
rible center. Hereafter the Equal Rights of 
All will take the place of Slavery, and the Re- 
public will revolve on this glorious pivot, whose 
infinite, 4ar- reaching radiations will be the liap- 
piness of the Human Family. There is nothing 
that the imagination can picture which will not 
be ours. Where justice is supreme nothing can 
be wanting. There will be room for every 
business and for every charity. The fields will 
nod with increase ; industry will be cpiickened 
t.ounimagined success, and life itself will be 
raisea lu'cv uigiiAv co^xrioo Tkor-o ^^ai be mat 
repose which comes from harmony, and also 
that simplicity which comes from one prevail- 
ing law, both of which are essential to the idea 
of the Republic. Our country will cease to be 
a patchwork where different States vary in the 
rights they accord, and will become a Plural 
Unit with one Constitution, one Libert}', and 
one Universal Franchise. With all these things 
the Republic will be a synonym for justice and 
peace, for these things will be inseparable from 
its name. In our longings we need not repair 
to philosophy or poetry. Nor need we go back 
to the memorable sage, who declared that the 
best government was where every citizen rushed 
to the defense of the humblest as if he were 
the State, for all this will be ours. Nor need 
we go back to that patriot king, in ancient 
tragedy, who, inspired by the Republican idea, 
exclaimed : 

"The people I made supreme, 
And on this city tcith an equal right 
For all to vote, its freedom have bestowed." 

Here at last, among us, all this will be assured, 
and the Republic will be of such renown and 
virtue that all at home or abroad who bear the 
American name may exclaim with more than 
Roman pride, "lam an American citizen,"' 
""'1 if danger approaches, they may repeat the 
•'*h more than Roman confidence, 
",1 - +!tle will be a suflicient 



•mine if all this 
ise is before you 
'" '-• o mity, infinite as 

human aspn-a... Uhc vision of a 

Republic. Do not turn i„.,..^ from it. Vindi- 
cate the great cause, 1 intreatyou, by the sup- 
pression of all oligarchical pretensions and the 
establishment of those Equal Rights, without 
which Republican Government is a name only, 
and nothing more. Strike at the Black Code, 



as you have already struck at the Slave Code. 
There is nothing to choose between them. 
Strike at once ; strike hard. You have already 
proclaimed Emancipation ; proclaim Enfran- 
chisement also. And do not,stultlfy yourselves 
by setting at naught the practical principle of 
the Fathers, that all just government stands only 
on the consent of the governed, and its insep- 
arable corollary, that taxation ■witliout repre- 
sentation is tijranini. What was once true is 
true forever, although we may for a time lose 
sight of it, and this is the case with those im- 
perishable truths to which you have been, alas! 
so indifferent. Tims far the work is only half 
clone. See that it is finished. Save the freed- 
man from the outrage which is his daily life. 
As a slave he was " a tool without a soul." If 
you have ceased to treat him according to this 
ancient definitio;i, it is only because you treat 
him even as something less. In your cruel phi- 
losophy he is only a "cipher," without the 
protection which the slave sometimes found in 
the self-interest of the master, or, rather let me 
say he is only a "cipher" where rights are 
concerned, but a numeral counted by millions 
where taxes are to be paid. The freedman is 
compelled not only to pay taxes; he must fight 
also, and he must obey the laws ; three things 
which he cannot escape. But, according to the 
primal principle of Republican Government, 
he has an indefeasible right to a voice in de- 
termining how to be taxed, when to fight, and 
what laws to obey, all of which can be secured 
only through the ballot. Thus again, do I re- 
turn to the same conclusion, which meets us at 
every point and at every stage, as a command- 
ment which cannot be disobeyed. 

Would you secure all the just fruits of this 
terrible war and trample out "the Rebellion in 
its pernicious assumptions, as in its arms? 
Then do not hesitate ; and this is the last 
stage of the argument. The Rebellion began in 
two assumptions, both proceeding from South 
Carolina : first, the sovereignty of the States, 
with the pretended right of secession ; and, 
secondly, the superiority of the white race, 
with the pretended right of Caste, Oligarchy, 
and Monopoly, on account of color. The first 
was often announced in every way. The sec- 
ond showed itself at the l:)eginning, when South 
Carolina alone, among the thirteen States, al- 
lowed her Constitution to be degraded by an 
exclusion on account of color; but it did not 
receive an authoritative statement tmtil a later 
day, when that wicked evangelist, jMr. Calhoun, 
taking issue witli the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, audaciously announced in the Senate that 
to declare all were born free and equal was 
"the most dangerous of all political errors; 
and that ithad done more to retard the cause 
of civilization, and is doing more at present 
than all other causes combined ; that we now 
begin to experience the danger of admittingso 
great an error to have a place in the Declara- 



32 



tion of Independence." (Calhoun's Speeches, 
vol. iv, p. 54.) These two assumptions are 
kindred in efifrontery. All agree that the dogma 
of State sovereignty must be repelled ; but this 
is less offensive than that other dogma, having 
the same origin, that the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence is "the most dangerous of all polit- 
ical errors." To repel such an effrontery is 
not enough ; it must be scorned. 

The gospel, according to Calhoun, is only 
another statement of the imposture, that this 
august Republic, founded to sustain the rights 
of Human Nature, is nothing but "a vhite 
man s Government." The whole assumption 
is ignoble, utterly unsupported 1)y history, and 
insulting to the Fathers, while it is offensively 
illogical and irreligious. It is illogical, inas- 
much as our fathers, when they declared that 
all men are created equal, gave expression to a 
truth of political science, whiob, fi-^i-m tUo no, 
ture of the case, admits no exception. As an 
axiom it is without exception ; for it is the essence 
otf 'an axiom, whether in geometry or morals, 
to be universal. As an abstract truth it is also 
without exception, according to the require- 
ment of such truth. And finally, as a self-evi- 
dent truth, so announced in the great Declara- 
tion , it is without exception ; for only such truth 
can be self-evident. Thus, whether axiom, ab- 
stract truth, or self-evident truth, it is always 
universal. But the assumption is not only 
illogical, it is irreligious, inasmuch as it flies in 
the face of that living truth which appears twice 
at the Creation : first, when God said, "Let us 
make man in our image ;" and, secondly, in the 
Unity of the race, then divinely appointed, and 
which appears again in the gospel, when it 
said, " God that made the world, and all things 
therein, hath made of one blood all nations of 
men." According to the best testimony now, 
the population of the earth — emljracing Cau- 
casians, Mongolians, Malays, Africans, and 
Americans — is about thirteen hundred millions, 
of whom only three hundred and seventy-five 
millions are "white men," or little less than 
one fourth, so that, in claiming exclusive rights 
for "white men," you degrade nearly three- 
quarters of the Human Family, made in the 
"imago of God" and declared to be of "one 
blood," while you sanction a Caste offensive 



to religion, an Oligarchy inconsistent with Be- 
publican Government, and a Monopoly which 
has the whole world for its footstool. 

Against this assumption I protest with mind, 
soul, and heart. It is false in religion, false in 
statesmanship, and false in economy. It is 
an extravagance, which, if enforced, is foolish 
tyranny. Show me a creature, with erect coun- 
tenance looking to heaven, made iu the image 
of God, and I show you a max, who, of what- 
ever country or race, whether darkened by 
equatorial sun or blanched by northern cold, 
is with you a child of the Heavenly Father, 
and equal with you in all the rights of Hu- 
man Nature. You cannot deny these rights 
without impiety. And so has God linked the 
national welfare with national duty, you cannot 
deny these rights without peril to the Kopubllc. 
It is not enough that you have given Liberty. 
Ry.+he same title that we claim Liberi.v '^*' ."^ 
claim Equality also. One curtnot be denied 
without the other. What is Liberty without 
Equality? What is Equality without Liberty? 
One is the complement of the other. The two 
are necessary to round and complete the circle 
of American citizenship. They are the two lobes 
of the mighty lungs through which the people 
breathe the breath of life. They are the two 
vital principles of a Kepublican Government, 
without which Government, although repub- 
lican in name, cannot be remiblican in fact. 
These two vital principles belortg to those divine 
statutes which are graven on the heart of Uni- 
versal Man, even upon the heart of the slave 
who forgets them, and upon the heart of the 
master who denies them ; and whether forgotten 
or denied, they are more enduring than marble 
or brass, for they share the perpetuity of the 
Human Family. 

The lloman Cato, after declaring his belief 
in the immortality of the soul, added, that if 
this were an error, it was an error which he 
loved. And now, declaring my belief in Lib- 
erty and Equality as the God-given birthright 
of all men, let me say, in the same spirit, if this 
be an error, it is an error which I love; if this 
be a fault, it is a fault which I shall be slow to 
renounce ; if this be an illusion, it is an illusion 
which I pray may wrap the world in its angel if' 
forms. 



X 



